Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by Gator515151, Jun 12, 2019.
Rachel Maddow can't moderate, but she can liberate.
Wouldn't be a good choice for a Presidential debate due to being overly partisan, but for a primary I don't see the issue. She seems fairly sharp as an interviewer, and while on a partisan mission, seems to generally stick to digging up actual facts - unlike the shouting matches/faux outrage trolling that Fox's partisan hosts tend to resort to these days.
"So in 1987 so and so got a letter in the mail" and 20 minutes later she still hasn't gotten to any kind of salient point.....
Yep and before we bash Trump, there was an article put out by MSN or CNN earlier this week that offers a glimpse of the massive debt expansion the democratic candidates are campaigning on. $40T anyone? The thing is and this is why I have issues with democrats is they spend their careers in the stall and they have no clue who fills the paper towels. Rarely any of them own businesses or have worked for a living. And yet they want this massive debt expansion. But who is going to give us the cash? The world doesn't have that cash to offer. We can't just print it either. We are getting our deficits paid by the weekly sale of treasury bills, but what happens if we need $5T and the world says "No Thanks."?
Maybe the same question should have been asked prior to enactment of the deficit-exploding tax cut?
She will be fine for the D debates.
For the win!
On topic, my brother watches Maddow and I find her insufferable. Takes forever "educating" her audience on background stuff (with her slant of course) and never gets to the freaking point.
But that shouldn't be an issue as a debate moderator.
Whether she will do a good job as a moderator I have no idea, but she won't have the platform to do her normal schtick, so I think it's possible. She does seem pretty intelligent and well informed.
Since the process of electing a president has devolved into a circus it is entirely expected that they would include clowns in the show.
We have reached the point where the debates should be hosted on the Jerry Springer show....
The process devolved into a clown shown during the 2016 Republican primary campaign when one of the candidates began performing like a standup comedian and started ridiculing his opponents with juvenile nicknames rather addressing the issues.
The music stops and the bread lines form. I think we have enough historical and present data to bear that out.
Scroll down the page and you will see tax revenues from 1960 up through the projected revenue for 2020. In 1990 we eclipsed the $1 Trillion dollar mark and that was with the broken promise of no more taxes by President George H.W. Bush. President Bush raised taxes and lost his re-election bid. With the exception of years 2001-2004 the coffers have never taken a downfall. During President George W. Bushes tenure revenues dropped. Keep in mind President Bush was still in office in 2005 when tax revenues began to climb again past the $2T mark. From there on in the revenues have since eclipsed the $3T mark.
US Tax Revenue by Year
When's the last time our population declined? Even the great recession only slightly and temporarily reduced overall tax receipts. Unless we see a population decline, it would be a sign if tremendous economic weakness to see a decline in revenues or in govt spending in absolute terms.
Govt revenues should essentially track with inflation, if anything they might not be keeping up because wages have been stagnant. All the masses of middle class folks haven't seen a pay increase to keep up with inflation in forever, thus are not paying as much in taxes as they would if wages had not stagnated. Nice that we gave the billionare class a break though. That's sure to fix the problem.
Bernie Sanders has already said how he'll fund Medicare for all. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he said it will be through taxes. What taxes and how much is the big question.
It's still a simple issue of spending more than we take in regardless of population growth and inflation adjustments. I'll concede the population has grown year after year from 1960 to present and yet this population growth does not satisfy the insatiable appetite of our Federal Government period.
As for the billionaire class and a break no matter how you slice it the billionaire class will never satisfy the insatiable appetite of our Federal Government either. Your grasping at straws if you believe the wealthy will carry the weight. It is mathematically impossible for them to do so given the way we manage our finances.
True, Bernie finally fessed up and said it will be paid for through taxes. In reality that's the only way the federal government can pay for anything. Where he intends to get the taxes from remains to be seen and as we all know the wealthy cannot pay for it all. I also doubt Bernie is willing to give up his millionaire status for Medicare.
Finally, an honest politician!!! Just kidding, y'all...
How about "The Biggest Loser".