CD Richards
Poet Rating
Rank: 87
Short Works Rating
Novel Rating
Review Stars
Rank: 200
RE: Are we there yet?
Message edited:
You conveniently ignore important facts, Lancellot. Not opinions, but facts. 1) The top four accruers of debt among the seven most recent presidents are Republicans. 2) The bottom three are Democrats. "Never went down", you say with regard to debt. What a lame argument. Debt levels have rarely ever gone down, anywhere; the measure of success is being able to manage increases -- something Republican presidents clearly can't do. You've got to manage that before you can start bringing them down.
Under the 4 months or so of Trump's second term, the S&P 500 has dropped around 14% -- the worst start for a President in over a century.
Your current choice of President is killing your country, and there is no sign of improvement. Why is removing the cause of the problem not the solution, Lancellot? Pride? Because Republican voters are too pigheaded to admit they made a horrible mistake? I suggest it is you who needs to "get real".
CD Richards
Poet Rating
Rank: 87
Short Works Rating
Novel Rating
Review Stars
Rank: 200
RE: Are we there yet?
P.S.
I know there is nothing that Americans could ever learn from us dumb, benighted antipodeans, but here's a fact.
If ANY Australian politician performs really poorly (by which I mean nowhere near the level of chaos and dismay Trump is currently causing), he (or she) is gone. This may be at the instigation of either the opposition or the government, and can be achieved in three ways:
1. Motion of No Confidence
Definition:
A motion of no confidence is a formal motion in Parliament stating that the government no longer has the confidence of the majority of the House of Representatives (the lower house of the federal Parliament).
How it works:
Usually introduced by the Opposition.
If passed, it means the Prime Minister and their government have lost the support of the majority.
Consequences:
The Prime Minister must either resign or advise the Governor-General to dissolve the House and call a new election.
The Governor-General may also invite another MP to form government if they can command a majority.
2. Blocking of Supply
Definition:
"Supply" refers to the budget bills (appropriation bills) that provide funding for the government to operate. Blocking supply means refusing to pass these bills.
How it works:
The Senate (upper house) has the power to block or delay supply.
If supply is blocked, the government may run out of money to function.
Consequences:
Creates a constitutional crisis.
The Prime Minister can:
Resign,
Advise a general election, or
Request the Governor-General to use reserve powers.
3. Party Spill
Definition:
A party spill is a declaration that all leadership positions in a political party are vacant and open for contest.
How it works:
Usually initiated by members of the party (not Parliament).
Can be called by the leader, a faction, or party room members.
A vote is held among the party’s MPs (or senators) to decide whether to change leaders.
By far the most common of these is the third option, brought on by the party in government. They will usually do this when they believe the sitting Prime Minister is so unpopular that the party reputation is being severely damaged, and they have little hope of winning the next election.
If you're a failure as leader in this country, you WILL be tossed aside.
With Trump's approval rating currently below 45% and rapidly heading south, maybe you should reconsider your options.
RE: Are we there yet?
Do you guys not understand how budgets and spending are set? The responsibility for debt is the exact opposite of what you think it is, and it's also more complicated than you think.
The first year of each presidential administration's spending is inherited from the previous Congress. Fiscal 2025 was set by the House elected in 2022, by members of the Senate who were elected in 2018, 2020 and 2022, and by Kamala Harris (who holds the tie-breaking vote in a divided Congress) who was elected in 2020. The spending bills were signed by Joe Biden.
Considering that Congress control tends to move in the opposite direction of who occupies the Presidency, you'd almost be more accurate doing the exact reverse of your useless AI analysis. The Democrats controlled Congress almost the entire time Reagan was President. You need to examine the policies and bills themselves to assess who to credit and who to blame for debt.
Party control over purse strings:
National debt as percent of GDP:
The two together, overlaid (sorry I know it is very difficult to read, as I am doing this on my phone and not with a proper image editor):
The bulk of the current damage from
debt accrued during the Obama years, and during Covid. Unfortunately I could not immediately find a graph to overlay that extended back into the Reagan era, but you get the idea.
RE: Are we there yet?
What you can see VERY CLEARLY from this overlay though is that the second that Dems control all three branches, and especially when they come into power, they have a massive spending orgy. And the same is not true when Republicans take control. Whatever the heck Trump is doing now, it doesn't look great right now but we will have to wait until the dust settles to see how it ends up. As of today we are 1/16th of the way through the second Trump presidency.
CD Richards
Poet Rating
Rank: 87
Short Works Rating
Novel Rating
Review Stars
Rank: 200
RE: Are we there yet?
Does that thought terrify you? It should.
I'll get back to you on the rest when I have time. It's dinner time here.
RE: Are we there yet?
I think you are missing the point. A trade war that ends up squarely focused on China in the crosshairs is long overdue. Do I wish it could have been done with less collateral damage along the way to allied relations and markets, yes. Some of it was deserved while some actions and a lot of the rhetoric was not. The story with Canada tariffs
was complicated.
CD Richards
Poet Rating
Rank: 87
Short Works Rating
Novel Rating
Review Stars
Rank: 200
RE: Are we there yet?
Right, time to address Harambe’s post:
1) Don’t be so arrogant and condescending in tone. Neither your skill set nor your track record warrant it.
2) AI, in spite of the very real threats it poses and the damage it is causing right this very minute, can be very useful when used properly. In particular, I find it really handy for reproducing a lot of statistics it would take me considerable effort to collate by other means. It doesn’t do my thinking for me. Ask me nicely some time, I’ll explain how it works. As for your assessment that my analysis is "useless", I’ll leave that for others to decide. Forgive me for not giving your opinion a whole lot of weight.
3) My analysis Is one of correlation: every single presidential Republican incumbent since Reagan has presided over a greater increase in debt than any Democrat over the same period. This is factually correct. As Gloria has pointed out, even the orange messiah noted Democrats are better economically than Republicans, until, of course, it didn’t suit him to do so.
4) Agreed, it can get very complicated, but you are being, I suspect, deliberately misleading here. Yes, the budget during the first 9 months of Trump’s first term was submitted by Obama. But for the remaining 39 months of his term, Trump set the budgets, and Trump also signed the bills. This is always the pattern. He had a Republican congress backing him. Presidents are mostly responsible for spending increases or decreases during their term.
To close off, returning to points that have been thoroughly addressed before:
A) The endless yes/no/no/maybe/wtf saga over tariffs is not going to do a single thing to help the debt situation. As has been observed countless times, it will hit US consumers and manufacturers badly and send many into bankruptcy. It won’t touch other nations, who will simply laugh at the US stealing from its own citizens and companies to pay off government debt, while those countries work out their own trade deals with each other.
B) The horror show that is DOGE will not solve a damn thing. The amount of money you are talking about is not even on the same scale as the debt problem. The already massively-reduced claimed savings will probably mostly evaporate due to things like dodgy tax schemes due to IRS cuts. And of course, as always, the poor and low-to-average income earners will pay the price, while the rich get richer.
C) The worst thing (so far) is that the chaos and pandemonium caused by all of the idiocy currently being displayed by this administration will, and already has, resulted in no one wanting to do business with the US. You’ve seen the effects thus far, and those are just the beginning. What is no trade going to do for your stratospheric debt problem?
But let’s not think it’s all doom and gloom; at least in a year or two’s time Trump might still cheat his way to a golf win while you’re queueing for food stamps.
Or, you could get rid of him and put someone who isn’t a lost child floundering in a playground far too big for him into the job.
RE: Are we there yet?
CD, I am just hearing a lot of hot air that ignores the power chart I just shared above. And, you continue to demonstrate ignorance over how US budgets are set. The President does not set the budget. He can submit a proposed budget to Congress, but this is largely a PR stunt to kick things off. Republicans were not in control of Congress for the second half of Trump's first term. Look at the chart.
CD Richards
Poet Rating
Rank: 87
Short Works Rating
Novel Rating
Review Stars
Rank: 200
RE: Are we there yet?
Message edited:
Harambe,
What I'm hearing from you is a lot of semantic nonsense in an attempt to escape the simple truth. Yes, I'm aware a President "proposes" the budget, and that is the sense in which I used the word "sets". I never intended to imply it was at that point a fait accompli. This is something you would have been aware of had you noticed I also referred to Obama "submitting" the budget.
Further, as I understand it, Congress determines spending and revenue levels in their budget resolution, and then passes appropriation bills that have to be signed by both the House and Senate, as well as the President, to become law, and there will usually be some negotiation along the way. If any of that is wrong, I'm certain you'll let me know.
As for your pretty charts, I didn't bother with them, because they are unreadable.
Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate for the first half of Trump's term. They controlled the Senate for the second half. As I'm sure you know, the Senate has the ultimate say in whether any bill gets passed, amended or rejected, so my point stands; but thanks for the spurious correction.
Anything else?
RE: Are we there yet?
As I'm sure you know, the Senate has the ultimate say in whether any bill gets passed, amended or rejected, so my point stands, but thanks for the spurious correction.
-What???? This is all false. All financial bills begin in the House. The Senate does not, NOT have ultimate say on any bill being passed, amended or rejected. What the.... Again, you guys do not know our system.
Even if Republicans have a majority in the Senate. They do not, NOT have sixty votes, which is needed to past most bills.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 -17- 18 19 20 21
