I Just Thought Of How Trump Can Get My Vote

[AntonToo]

So baby boomers - who were mandated by the government to give up over 6% of their earnings their entire working lives to this slush fund - can't collect until, well, death?

The average life expectancy when SS was enacted was 60. Social Security was intended as insurance to be paid to those who lived beyond the mean. And this scheme has always favored the white collar class, as blue collars didn't live that long.

Only 5.4% of the population was over 65 when Social Security was enacted.

In 1965, when Medicare was added, 9 percent of the population was over 65. That is where I came up with the 9 percent index going forward.

Today, we are pushing 15 percent. A smaller and smaller percentage of Americans are supporting a larger and larger percentage. This is an unsustainable trend.

WE ARE LIVING DECADES LONGER, WE SHOULD BE WORKING LONGER.

Common sense.

But just because people live longer doesn't mean they are more capable of working.

 

[g5000]

Maybe.

I hate Trump. This is no secret.

But...

The single biggest crisis facing America today is not ISIS, or homosexuals, or blacks, or Mexicans, or Muslims. Not even close.

It's our debt.

Our debt will be our downfall. During the next downturn, and there will be a downturn no matter who is President, our debt will prevent us from recovering quickly, if at all. Just like it prevented us from recovering quickly from the last one.

At the very least, we will be looking at negative interest rates. A possibility I actually considered to be an impossibility three years ago when I started a topic about the Fed's bond bubble on this forum.

Our debt is a bi-partisan effort. Anyone who claims it was the Democrats is an idiot. Anyone who claims it was the Republicans is an idiot. It was BOTH.

U.S. government debt now stands at 103% of GDP. If private debt is included, the ratio climbs to about 370% of GDP. Scholarly studies indicate that real per capita GDP growth should slow by about one-quarter to one-third from the long-run trend when the total debt-to-GDP ratio rises into the range between 250% and 275%. Since surpassing this level in the late 1990s, real per capita GDP has grown just 1% per annum, much less than the 1.9% pace from 1790 to 1999.

These results indicate that the relationship between debt and economic growth is non-linear, or progressively negative, as debt advances to higher levels, a pattern confirmed by academic research (Chart 2). The latest information further supports this relationship. The current expansion began in 2009, and since then real per capita GDP growth has been 1.3%, less than half the 2.7% average growth in all expansions from 1790 to 1999.

http://www.hoisingtonmgt.com/pdf/HIM2015Q3NP.pdf


You all should be familiar with me enough to know what I have proposed as the solution to our debt problem. Primarily, raise the Social Security and Medicare eligiblity age to 70, indexed to 9 percent going forward, and ban most of the $1.2 trillion in annual tax expenditures.


Do you know who the two candidates this go-round are who most closely align with me on this?

Ted Cruz and John Kasich.


Now, right away, some of your stomachs churned at one or both of those names. Especially Ted Cruz.

But think for a second. What is it about Ted Cruz which turns off a lot of people?

It's his social agenda, right?

But what if Ted Cruz was Secretary of the Treasury? He would be strictly a financial policy guy in a Trump Administration, not a social policy guy.

Treasury. Where the IRS lives.

Ted Cruz rose to fame for opposing raising the debt limit. He's a financial guy more than a social issues guy.

Ted Cruz's tax plan is acceptable to me. He would ban most tax expenditures.


As for John Kasich, he balanced the federal budget before.


So...

If Donald Trump said he would appoint Cruz or Kasich as Secretary of the Treasury, I would seriously consider voting for him.

Because our debt is the most serious crisis facing America today. And either one of those guys can solve it.

Then all we have to do is hope Trump spends most of his time golfing.

While I disagree with your opinion on Ted Cruz's social policies, and that Kasich could properly do anything, I do agree that the debt is a problem that needs addressed. I just also think that appointing Kasich, who's part of the Establishment, which is almost entirely responsible for the silly levels of spending within the government, would be a terrible move.

You are parroting utter nonsense. Kasich BALANCED the federal budget. He is the only candidate out there who ever has.

He was not part of the overspending Establishment. To lump him in with deficit spenders is ignorant.

He even took his state's deficit and turned it into a surplus.

Ted Cruz would make a wonderful Secretary of Treasury, though. It wouldn't keep me from absolutely disliking Trump, but it would certainly help having him as president become more bearable.

Too many Secretaries of the Treasury have been owned by Wall Street. I don't think Cruz would be.

 

[OKTexas]

public debt is the end result of deficits ... Mr. Trumps economic plan would increase the deficit $12 dollars over the next decade.

TA DAAAAAA !

12 dollars!!!!!! Hell I'l cover that.

 

[AntonToo]

So baby boomers - who were mandated by the government to give up over 6% of their earnings their entire working lives to this slush fund - can't collect until, well, death?

Social Security shouldn't exist, anyway.

Yea it's not like poverty among the elderly concerns anyone.

 

[g5000]

So baby boomers - who were mandated by the government to give up over 6% of their earnings their entire working lives to this slush fund - can't collect until, well, death?

The average life expectancy when SS was enacted was 60. Social Security was intended as insurance to be paid to those who lived beyond the mean. And this scheme has always favored the white collar class, as blue collars didn't live that long.

Only 5.4% of the population was over 65 when Social Security was enacted.

In 1965, when Medicare was added, 9 percent of the population was over 65. That is where I came up with the 9 percent index going forward.

Today, we are pushing 15 percent. A smaller and smaller percentage of Americans are supporting a larger and larger percentage. This is an unsustainable trend.

WE ARE LIVING DECADES LONGER, WE SHOULD BE WORKING LONGER.

Common sense.

But just because people live longer doesn't mean they are more capable of working.

Yes it does. The 65 year old of today is in far better health than the 65 year old of 1935.

And labor is nowhere near as physically demanding today as it was in 1935.

 

[g5000]

Trump's plan to tackle debt:

Trump’s Tax Cuts Would Add $24.5 Trillion to the Debt

All the more reason we need a Cruz or Kasich to school the idiot.

Treasury does not get to tell the Congress and POTUS what tax cuts to pass.

They have the most significant input on the President's budget proposal.

Most of our Presidents have been severely lacking in economics knowledge and have relied heavily on the SecTreas to steer our economy, in conjunction with the Fed chairman.

That's why I said I would want Trump to go golfing as much as possible and let Cruz or Kasich drive.

 

[Siete]

public debt is the end result of deficits ... Mr. Trumps economic plan would increase the deficit $12 dollars over the next decade.

TA DAAAAAA !

12 dollars!!!!!! Hell I'l cover that.

no need, I just did. Checks in the mail.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Maybe.

I hate Trump. This is no secret.

But...

The single biggest crisis facing America today is not ISIS, or homosexuals, or blacks, or Mexicans, or Muslims. Not even close.

It's our debt.

Our debt will be our downfall. During the next downturn, and there will be a downturn no matter who is President, our debt will prevent us from recovering quickly, if at all. Just like it prevented us from recovering quickly from the last one.

At the very least, we will be looking at negative interest rates. A possibility I actually considered to be an impossibility three years ago when I started a topic about the Fed's bond bubble on this forum.

Our debt is a bi-partisan effort. Anyone who claims it was the Democrats is an idiot. Anyone who claims it was the Republicans is an idiot. It was BOTH.

U.S. government debt now stands at 103% of GDP. If private debt is included, the ratio climbs to about 370% of GDP. Scholarly studies indicate that real per capita GDP growth should slow by about one-quarter to one-third from the long-run trend when the total debt-to-GDP ratio rises into the range between 250% and 275%. Since surpassing this level in the late 1990s, real per capita GDP has grown just 1% per annum, much less than the 1.9% pace from 1790 to 1999.

These results indicate that the relationship between debt and economic growth is non-linear, or progressively negative, as debt advances to higher levels, a pattern confirmed by academic research (Chart 2). The latest information further supports this relationship. The current expansion began in 2009, and since then real per capita GDP growth has been 1.3%, less than half the 2.7% average growth in all expansions from 1790 to 1999.

http://www.hoisingtonmgt.com/pdf/HIM2015Q3NP.pdf


You all should be familiar with me enough to know what I have proposed as the solution to our debt problem. Primarily, raise the Social Security and Medicare eligiblity age to 70, indexed to 9 percent going forward, and ban most of the $1.2 trillion in annual tax expenditures.


Do you know who the two candidates this go-round are who most closely align with me on this?

Ted Cruz and John Kasich.


Now, right away, some of your stomachs churned at one or both of those names. Especially Ted Cruz.

But think for a second. What is it about Ted Cruz which turns off a lot of people?

It's his social agenda, right?

But what if Ted Cruz was Secretary of the Treasury? He would be strictly a financial policy guy in a Trump Administration, not a social policy guy.

Treasury. Where the IRS lives.

Ted Cruz rose to fame for opposing raising the debt limit. He's a financial guy more than a social issues guy.

Ted Cruz's tax plan is acceptable to me. He would ban most tax expenditures.


As for John Kasich, he balanced the federal budget before.


So...

If Donald Trump said he would appoint Cruz or Kasich as Secretary of the Treasury, I would seriously consider voting for him.

Because our debt is the most serious crisis facing America today. And either one of those guys can solve it.

Then all we have to do is hope Trump spends most of his time golfing.

While I disagree with your opinion on Ted Cruz's social policies, and that Kasich could properly do anything, I do agree that the debt is a problem that needs addressed. I just also think that appointing Kasich, who's part of the Establishment, which is almost entirely responsible for the silly levels of spending within the government, would be a terrible move.

You are parroting utter nonsense. Kasich BALANCED the federal budget. He is the only candidate out there who ever has.

He was not part of the overspending Establishment. To lump him in with deficit spenders is ignorant.

He even took his state's deficit and turned it into a surplus.

Ted Cruz would make a wonderful Secretary of Treasury, though. It wouldn't keep me from absolutely disliking Trump, but it would certainly help having him as president become more bearable.

Too many Secretaries of the Treasury have been owned by Wall Street. I don't think Cruz would be.

He was "One of the chief architects", he himself did not balance the budget, and before he even made it into office, policies were in place that had been doing that job already. He may have trimmed spending, but he could not have been responsible for the balanced budget.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

So baby boomers - who were mandated by the government to give up over 6% of their earnings their entire working lives to this slush fund - can't collect until, well, death?

Social Security shouldn't exist, anyway.

Yea it's not like poverty among the elderly concerns anyone.

Social Security is the assumption that the government knows how to save better than we, the people, do. Considering the government's current debt, I'm not too convinced.

 

[g5000]

Maybe.

I hate Trump. This is no secret.

But...

The single biggest crisis facing America today is not ISIS, or homosexuals, or blacks, or Mexicans, or Muslims. Not even close.

It's our debt.

Our debt will be our downfall. During the next downturn, and there will be a downturn no matter who is President, our debt will prevent us from recovering quickly, if at all. Just like it prevented us from recovering quickly from the last one.

At the very least, we will be looking at negative interest rates. A possibility I actually considered to be an impossibility three years ago when I started a topic about the Fed's bond bubble on this forum.

Our debt is a bi-partisan effort. Anyone who claims it was the Democrats is an idiot. Anyone who claims it was the Republicans is an idiot. It was BOTH.

U.S. government debt now stands at 103% of GDP. If private debt is included, the ratio climbs to about 370% of GDP. Scholarly studies indicate that real per capita GDP growth should slow by about one-quarter to one-third from the long-run trend when the total debt-to-GDP ratio rises into the range between 250% and 275%. Since surpassing this level in the late 1990s, real per capita GDP has grown just 1% per annum, much less than the 1.9% pace from 1790 to 1999.

These results indicate that the relationship between debt and economic growth is non-linear, or progressively negative, as debt advances to higher levels, a pattern confirmed by academic research (Chart 2). The latest information further supports this relationship. The current expansion began in 2009, and since then real per capita GDP growth has been 1.3%, less than half the 2.7% average growth in all expansions from 1790 to 1999.

http://www.hoisingtonmgt.com/pdf/HIM2015Q3NP.pdf


You all should be familiar with me enough to know what I have proposed as the solution to our debt problem. Primarily, raise the Social Security and Medicare eligiblity age to 70, indexed to 9 percent going forward, and ban most of the $1.2 trillion in annual tax expenditures.


Do you know who the two candidates this go-round are who most closely align with me on this?

Ted Cruz and John Kasich.


Now, right away, some of your stomachs churned at one or both of those names. Especially Ted Cruz.

But think for a second. What is it about Ted Cruz which turns off a lot of people?

It's his social agenda, right?

But what if Ted Cruz was Secretary of the Treasury? He would be strictly a financial policy guy in a Trump Administration, not a social policy guy.

Treasury. Where the IRS lives.

Ted Cruz rose to fame for opposing raising the debt limit. He's a financial guy more than a social issues guy.

Ted Cruz's tax plan is acceptable to me. He would ban most tax expenditures.


As for John Kasich, he balanced the federal budget before.


So...

If Donald Trump said he would appoint Cruz or Kasich as Secretary of the Treasury, I would seriously consider voting for him.

Because our debt is the most serious crisis facing America today. And either one of those guys can solve it.

Then all we have to do is hope Trump spends most of his time golfing.

While I disagree with your opinion on Ted Cruz's social policies, and that Kasich could properly do anything, I do agree that the debt is a problem that needs addressed. I just also think that appointing Kasich, who's part of the Establishment, which is almost entirely responsible for the silly levels of spending within the government, would be a terrible move.

You are parroting utter nonsense. Kasich BALANCED the federal budget. He is the only candidate out there who ever has.

He was not part of the overspending Establishment. To lump him in with deficit spenders is ignorant.

He even took his state's deficit and turned it into a surplus.

Ted Cruz would make a wonderful Secretary of Treasury, though. It wouldn't keep me from absolutely disliking Trump, but it would certainly help having him as president become more bearable.

Too many Secretaries of the Treasury have been owned by Wall Street. I don't think Cruz would be.

He was "One of the chief architects", he himself did not balance the budget, and before he even made it into office, policies were in place that had been doing that job already. He may have trimmed spending, but he could not have been responsible for the balanced budget.

Before he made it into office?

You obviously are unaware of when Kasich entered office.

He was chairman of the House Budget Committee, which made him a significant player in the balanced budget. How you can say with a straight face that the chairman of the BUDGET Committee could not have been responsible for the budget is beyond me!

And do you think it is just a coincidence that he went on to become Governor and then took that budget and made it a surplus, too?


No other candidate can even come close to making the claim they have balanced both a federal and a state budget, as a legislator and an executive.

This is a guy who knows how to work with all the players to get things done. You can call that "Establishment" like its a dirty word, but that would make you a parroting retard who can't see the forest for the trees.

 

[AntonToo]

Yes it does. The 65 year old of today is in far better health than the 65 year old of 1935.

Again, just because you live longer doesn't mean you are capable of work.

Your mind is not as sharp, your muscles deteriorate, your eyes are not as quick, your hands are not as dexterous, your energy is way down. Arbitrary keeping at 9% just doesn't make any sense.

 

[Siete]

the President proposes, Congress disposes.

if Congress wanted to make attempt at the debt picture, they would do it.

 

[AntonToo]

Social Security is the assumption that the government knows how to save better than we, the people, do. Considering the government's current debt, I'm not too convinced.

Social Security is the assumption that people are often irresponsible to save for retirement and will make risky investments when they do.

Are you really going to try to maintain that this isn't so?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Maybe.

I hate Trump. This is no secret.

But...

The single biggest crisis facing America today is not ISIS, or homosexuals, or blacks, or Mexicans, or Muslims. Not even close.

It's our debt.

Our debt will be our downfall. During the next downturn, and there will be a downturn no matter who is President, our debt will prevent us from recovering quickly, if at all. Just like it prevented us from recovering quickly from the last one.

At the very least, we will be looking at negative interest rates. A possibility I actually considered to be an impossibility three years ago when I started a topic about the Fed's bond bubble on this forum.

Our debt is a bi-partisan effort. Anyone who claims it was the Democrats is an idiot. Anyone who claims it was the Republicans is an idiot. It was BOTH.

U.S. government debt now stands at 103% of GDP. If private debt is included, the ratio climbs to about 370% of GDP. Scholarly studies indicate that real per capita GDP growth should slow by about one-quarter to one-third from the long-run trend when the total debt-to-GDP ratio rises into the range between 250% and 275%. Since surpassing this level in the late 1990s, real per capita GDP has grown just 1% per annum, much less than the 1.9% pace from 1790 to 1999.

These results indicate that the relationship between debt and economic growth is non-linear, or progressively negative, as debt advances to higher levels, a pattern confirmed by academic research (Chart 2). The latest information further supports this relationship. The current expansion began in 2009, and since then real per capita GDP growth has been 1.3%, less than half the 2.7% average growth in all expansions from 1790 to 1999.

http://www.hoisingtonmgt.com/pdf/HIM2015Q3NP.pdf


You all should be familiar with me enough to know what I have proposed as the solution to our debt problem. Primarily, raise the Social Security and Medicare eligiblity age to 70, indexed to 9 percent going forward, and ban most of the $1.2 trillion in annual tax expenditures.


Do you know who the two candidates this go-round are who most closely align with me on this?

Ted Cruz and John Kasich.


Now, right away, some of your stomachs churned at one or both of those names. Especially Ted Cruz.

But think for a second. What is it about Ted Cruz which turns off a lot of people?

It's his social agenda, right?

But what if Ted Cruz was Secretary of the Treasury? He would be strictly a financial policy guy in a Trump Administration, not a social policy guy.

Treasury. Where the IRS lives.

Ted Cruz rose to fame for opposing raising the debt limit. He's a financial guy more than a social issues guy.

Ted Cruz's tax plan is acceptable to me. He would ban most tax expenditures.


As for John Kasich, he balanced the federal budget before.


So...

If Donald Trump said he would appoint Cruz or Kasich as Secretary of the Treasury, I would seriously consider voting for him.

Because our debt is the most serious crisis facing America today. And either one of those guys can solve it.

Then all we have to do is hope Trump spends most of his time golfing.

While I disagree with your opinion on Ted Cruz's social policies, and that Kasich could properly do anything, I do agree that the debt is a problem that needs addressed. I just also think that appointing Kasich, who's part of the Establishment, which is almost entirely responsible for the silly levels of spending within the government, would be a terrible move.

You are parroting utter nonsense. Kasich BALANCED the federal budget. He is the only candidate out there who ever has.

He was not part of the overspending Establishment. To lump him in with deficit spenders is ignorant.

He even took his state's deficit and turned it into a surplus.

Ted Cruz would make a wonderful Secretary of Treasury, though. It wouldn't keep me from absolutely disliking Trump, but it would certainly help having him as president become more bearable.

Too many Secretaries of the Treasury have been owned by Wall Street. I don't think Cruz would be.

He was "One of the chief architects", he himself did not balance the budget, and before he even made it into office, policies were in place that had been doing that job already. He may have trimmed spending, but he could not have been responsible for the balanced budget.

Before he made it into office?

You obviously are unaware of when Kasich entered office.

He was chairman of the House Budget Committee, which made him a significant player in the balanced budget. How you can say with a straight face that the chairman of the BUDGET Committee could not have been responsible for the budget is beyond me!

And do you think it is just a coincidence that he went on to become Governor and then took that budget and made it a surplus, too?


No other candidate can even come close to making the claim they have balanced both a federal and a state budget, as a legislator and an executive.

This is a guy who knows how to work with all the players to get things done. You can call that "Establishment" like its a dirty word, but that would make you a parroting retard who can't see the forest for the trees.

I'm not saying he didn't help, or didn't do anything, only that you're giving him way too much credit.

None

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Social Security is the assumption that the government knows how to save better than we, the people, do. Considering the government's current debt, I'm not too convinced.

Social Security is the assumption that people are often irresponsible to save for retirement and will make risky investments when they do.

Are you really going to try to maintain that this isn't so?

People are responsible for their own money, and when they make a decision, they should be willing to accept the consequences. The government is not our parents. People should learn to save, and if they don't, they should deal with the consequences.

 

[g5000]

So baby boomers - who were mandated by the government to give up over 6% of their earnings their entire working lives to this slush fund - can't collect until, well, death?

Oh, one more thing.

We are living to 78, on average, and rising.

Not 70.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Note to g5000
We DON'T want you.
Trump supporter
Fury

When your candidate (Trump) needs every vote he can get, tell a prospective voter to fuck off. Beautiful man. You should run a political campaign. You and Cory.

 

[g5000]

Social Security is the assumption that the government knows how to save better than we, the people, do. Considering the government's current debt, I'm not too convinced.

Social Security is the assumption that people are often irresponsible to save for retirement and will make risky investments when they do.

Are you really going to try to maintain that this isn't so?

People are responsible for their own money, and when they make a decision, they should be willing to accept the consequences. The government is not our parents. People should learn to save, and if they don't, they should deal with the consequences.

That all sounds great. It makes excellent material for bumper stickers.

Meanwhile, back here in reality, over 28 percent of seniors were living in poverty before the enactment of Medicare. Nearly half were uninsured.

Today, only 9 percent are in poverty, and 97 percent are insured.

Exactly how would going back to the old ways Make America Great Again?

Do you know how many of Trump's Chumps would die in the street under your terms?

A LOT! By falling for a fraud like Trump, they have demonstrated their credulousness and vulnerability to every pension-stealing huckster out there.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Social Security is the assumption that the government knows how to save better than we, the people, do. Considering the government's current debt, I'm not too convinced.

Social Security is the assumption that people are often irresponsible to save for retirement and will make risky investments when they do.

Are you really going to try to maintain that this isn't so?

People are responsible for their own money, and when they make a decision, they should be willing to accept the consequences. The government is not our parents. People should learn to save, and if they don't, they should deal with the consequences.

That all sounds great. It makes excellent material for bumper stickers.

Meanwhile, back here in reality, over 28 percent of seniors were living in poverty before the enactment of Medicare. Nearly half were uninsured.

Today, only 9 percent are in poverty, and 97 percent are insured.

Exactly how would going back to the old ways Make America Great Again?

Certainly would cut down on the amount of money the government steals from the citizens~

 

[Siete]

you can blow SS out of the water and it alone wont solve the debt issue.