Why the US will power the world economy in 2015

boards of FL wrote:

Bad year for republicans.

Bob wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Bad year for republicans.

If the republicans are so hated and the democrats are so loved,  how do you explain the results of the midterm elections?

boards of FL wrote:

Bob wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Bad year for republicans.

If the republicans are so hated and the democrats are so loved,  how do you explain the results of the midterm elections?

Because, historically, we almost always see a swing to the opposition in the second term, mid-term election.  The election results were a surprise to absolutely no one but the KarlRoves and Markles of the world.

2seaoat wrote:Two thirds of the state legislatures are pub controlled too... probably because states can't print their own money.


Nope....you are smarter than that........North Dakota, South Dakota, and California......two thirds are republican......yep, as the rural west and south is the base of Republican Party, but the entire population of those two states would not come near the population of San Diego or LA.   This is why the Republicans structurally each year are having a more difficult time winning the Presidency as the electoral college has become so stacked in populous states that the rural low population states have become irrelevant,  It is Florida, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Michigan, and Wisconsin which will need to be swept by a Republican to win the Presidency......unless a sudden death, or scandal......not going to happen any time soon.  Nothing is impossible, but the odds are increasingly looking like the Presidency will remain Democratic.

PkrBum wrote:Two thirds of the state legislatures are pub controlled too... probably because states can't print their own money.

boards of FL wrote:Good year for stocks.  Good year for the economic growth.  Good year for jobs.  Good year for energy.  Good year for deficit reduction.  

Bad year for republicans.

colaguy wrote:

boards of FL wrote:Good year for stocks.  Good year for the economic growth.  Good year for jobs.  Good year for energy.  Good year for deficit reduction.  

Bad year for republicans.

It would be better to focus on debt reduction.  Now, that would be impressive.

boards of FL wrote:

colaguy wrote:

boards of FL wrote:Good year for stocks.  Good year for the economic growth.  Good year for jobs.  Good year for energy.  Good year for deficit reduction.  

Bad year for republicans.

It would be better to focus on debt reduction.  Now, that would be impressive.

How many times must this be explained to you?  How does one go about focusing on debt reduction?  

Imagine if I were to say "My new years resolution is to start exercising daily and eating healthy", and then you were to see someone reply "It would be better to focus on weight loss", what would think about that person's intelligence?

Seriously.

In other news, Peyton Manning says that if they are going to defeat New England on the road, he's going to have to step up his game and throw more passing TD's and also facilitate the run game and rushing TD's.

Coach John Fox disagreed.  Coach Fox says it would be better to focus on scoring more and producing and effective offense.

That's you, colaguy.  That's you.

colaguy wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

colaguy wrote:

boards of FL wrote:Good year for stocks.  Good year for the economic growth.  Good year for jobs.  Good year for energy.  Good year for deficit reduction.  

Bad year for republicans.

It would be better to focus on debt reduction.  Now, that would be impressive.

How many times must this be explained to you?  How does one go about focusing on debt reduction?  

Imagine if I were to say "My new years resolution is to start exercising daily and eating healthy", and then you were to see someone reply "It would be better to focus on weight loss", what would think about that person's intelligence?

Seriously.

In other news, Peyton Manning says that if they are going to defeat New England on the road, he's going to have to step up his game and throw more passing TD's and also facilitate the run game and rushing TD's.

Coach John Fox disagreed.  Coach Fox says it would be better to focus on scoring more and producing and effective offense.

That's you, colaguy.  That's you.

Clearly you have disconnect between deficit and debt. If Congress reduces this year's deficit to zero, that adds no new debt (for this year). But the act of reducing the deficit to zero did nothing to reduce the (currently massive) debt.

colaguy wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

colaguy wrote:

boards of FL wrote:Good year for stocks.  Good year for the economic growth.  Good year for jobs.  Good year for energy.  Good year for deficit reduction.  

Bad year for republicans.

It would be better to focus on debt reduction.  Now, that would be impressive.

How many times must this be explained to you?  How does one go about focusing on debt reduction?  

Imagine if I were to say "My new years resolution is to start exercising daily and eating healthy", and then you were to see someone reply "It would be better to focus on weight loss", what would think about that person's intelligence?

Seriously.

In other news, Peyton Manning says that if they are going to defeat New England on the road, he's going to have to step up his game and throw more passing TD's and also facilitate the run game and rushing TD's.

Coach John Fox disagreed.  Coach Fox says it would be better to focus on scoring more and producing and effective offense.

That's you, colaguy.  That's you.

Clearly you have disconnect between deficit and debt. If Congress reduces this year's deficit to zero, that adds no new debt (for this year). But the act of reducing the deficit to zero did nothing to reduce the (currently massive) debt.

2seaoat wrote:Clearly you have disconnect between deficit and debt. If Congress reduces this year's deficit to zero, that adds no new debt (for this year). But the act of reducing the deficit to zero did nothing to reduce the (currently massive) debt.


Ok, I think we all get your focus on the national debt.  I also think it would be fair to say almost everybody finds the ratio of debt to earnings is too high.

So do we cut government spending and take a deep walk down the trail of austerity, or do we fire up the GDP and increase revenues to pay down the debt.

John makes 50k a year.  He has 50k of debt, and is running 1k a month deficits living on credit cards.  He has a 700 dollar a month car payment, a 2k house payment, and 1.3k a month discretionary spending for his 50k.  Somebody says, John you have too much debt, you need to quit worrying about the credit cards and pay down debt.  So this financial advisor tells him to quit investing in clothing, and cuts his discretionary spending by 300 a month.  He tells him to get rid of the car and take the bus, and he saved 700 a month.  He is told to sell the house and get an apartment for 1k a month, but this is an hour from where the jobs are.  John starts showing up to work and is dressing rather dowdy as his reviews drop and his earnings are cut to 40k a year, but he has cut his debt by 20k for a net 10k a year reduction in debt.

Smart Paul begins cutting unnecessary discretionary spending, and invests in a degree which allows him to get a 80k a year job.  He has 30k a year to apply to debt........is austerity and john the right path by centering on debt, or is investing in the future and raising revenue the better way to decrease debt.   It is how this country chooses to reduce debt, not the fact that there is debt which is important.  President Obama has been brilliant in decreasing debt while growing the economy.  His efforts have been historic, yet John is saying you have to focus on debt.......nope, more revenue and a plan takes care of debt.

2seaoat wrote:Clearly you have disconnect between deficit and debt. If Congress reduces this year's deficit to zero, that adds no new debt (for this year). But the act of reducing the deficit to zero did nothing to reduce the (currently massive) debt.


Ok, I think we all get your focus on the national debt.  I also think it would be fair to say almost everybody finds the ratio of debt to earnings is too high.

So do we cut government spending and take a deep walk down the trail of austerity, or do we fire up the GDP and increase revenues to pay down the debt.

John makes 50k a year.  He has 50k of debt, and is running 1k a month deficits living on credit cards.  He has a 700 dollar a month car payment, a 2k house payment, and 1.3k a month discretionary spending for his 50k.  Somebody says, John you have too much debt, you need to quit worrying about the credit cards and pay down debt.  So this financial advisor tells him to quit investing in clothing, and cuts his discretionary spending by 300 a month.  He tells him to get rid of the car and take the bus, and he saved 700 a month.  He is told to sell the house and get an apartment for 1k a month, but this is an hour from where the jobs are.  John starts showing up to work and is dressing rather dowdy as his reviews drop and his earnings are cut to 40k a year, but he has cut his debt by 20k for a net 10k a year reduction in debt.

Smart Paul begins cutting unnecessary discretionary spending, and invests in a degree which allows him to get a 80k a year job.  He has 30k a year to apply to debt........is austerity and john the right path by centering on debt, or is investing in the future and raising revenue the better way to decrease debt.   It is how this country chooses to reduce debt, not the fact that there is debt which is important.  President Obama has been brilliant in decreasing debt while growing the economy.  His efforts have been historic, yet John is saying you have to focus on debt.......nope, more revenue and a plan takes care of debt.