does this mean you think he will still be President in 2020? and running for re-election?

Listening to somebody this morning who wasn't really an Trump supporter, it is a lot easier once you are in. There is no reason that Obama should have won in 2012. Romney was clearly the better man, and Obama wasn't even rating well. Same goes for Bush in 2004. He shouldn't have won, he was despised by the left and moderates alike. Sure, Kerry sucked big time, but...

Point is, Trump makes good symbolically on even a fraction of his yuuuggge promises and he wins a 2nd term. Obama isn't handing over as great of an economy as some suggested, so even minimal improvement will benefit trump, no matter what he does. If he gets some sort of wall started, and doesnt' fuck over traditional republican and moderate voters lives, he's in. Especially if the Dems experiment with some super leftist in the Bernie sanders/Warren wing. They don't have a solid bench of moderates with mass appeal. Mark Warner, O'Malley, Cuomo, Maybe, but they would get butchered in a primary with the direction that party is going.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

heads exploding.......

80/20 he makes it through term #1

40/60 he runs again

It'll be entertaining to watch Republicans justifying the debt while Democrats attack it.

He will change his tune and start justifying it.

Someone should bring back this thread in 4 years.

Yeah, but the people with power, the ones that were threatening to shut down the government and default on the debt are losing interest. The new House rule prohibit the CBO from calculating the effect of an Obamacare repeal.

---

“Read the transcript.”

Obama was a Senator before the previous administration destroyed the economy. If he had been less concerned in the early part of his presidency, the economy would have recovered quicker.

---

“Read the transcript.”

does this mean you think he will still be President in 2020? and running for re-election?


I do think that both will happen.

yours would be the most logical conclusion. The "conventional wisdom". I have been burned by my conventional political thinking so much in the last 18 months that I am no longer sure what to think

I expect Trump to have an annual surplus at the end of his 4 years.

That would be good news - as the U.S. debt is starting to reach that problematic stage. However, how IS this going to happen? Trump's talking about tax cuts ( decreasing government revenue), and possible substantial Government expense increases (Military Expansion, Infrastructure Upgrades(badly needed), Nuclear armament overhaul etc . .).

How will this work exactly? The above "plan", will only see greater deficits and more debt!

Much smaller numbers but Canada was actually in worse shape in the mid 1990's than the U.S. is now with Debt to GDP ratio. We were about to be down-graded by credit rating bodies. It took sustained efforts from , first Liberal governments and then Conservative governments over a 15+ year period to get to a surplus situation. These are BIG ships these national economies. They take a lot of work to change course and turn around, and it takes a long time. It's doubtful it can happen in 4-years even if Trump has the right "plan", but as noted above, his "plan" seems to be more debt and a bigger deficit.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

yours would be the most logical conclusion. The "conventional wisdom". I have been burned by my conventional political thinking so much in the last 18 months that I am no longer sure what to think

Indeed. These are highly unusual times. The political world is upside down.

Nothing seems to make sense. Look at the stock-market. It's clear, that Donald Trump represents uncertainty on many key fronts - even supporters will admit this. Generally speaking stock markets and large economic bodies don't like uncertainty - at least that's historically how they have behaved. But since the election of Trump the Stock Market has continued to surge! Does this mean Trump is a good thing? Well if you go by the Stock Markets, that answer would be "Yes", but as noted this is a massive historical break from past behavior and conventional wisdome. But many business-leaders, CEO's, Influential People etc . . have come out saying they are VERY concerned about what a Trump presidency will mean.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

I think the stock market "trump rally" indicator is a blip on the radar. While it may be "attached" to what happened in November (ie. some believe reduced regulation and the possibility of reduced tax rates have driven it up) I for one am not buying the correlation. This could be a Santa Claus rally or a change in regime rally as much as anything. I think things are turning in the opposite direction and will settle in over time. I think things were overheated to begin with.

The best I think any of us can do is go back to our core beliefs/values and hold Trump and anyone else honestly to these. If we do this, I think for instance you and I share more complete common ground than our political views differ.

As I have said I can get behind infrastructure spending for the US. While I don't like that it may add to our overall debt it is an issue I can get behind and if that is the consequence so be it.
To your point above the deficit has to be dealt with in order to deal with the long term debt issue. If all the "promises" Trump has made result in a net deficit then he will need to back off of some to get my overall nod of approval. And if he does this (runs a surplus) but breaks some "promises" to do it (and lays that correlation out) I will not crucify him for a broken promise. Etc Etc.

Lots of questions and concerns from my little corner of the world. Answers begin on Friday. Hold on to your butts........

http://www.msn.com/...r-AAm1b5Y?li=BBnb7Kz

I am not endorsing anything in this article, and quite frankly haven't read it very closely. Just attaching it as it is the first sign/indication of the "how" we have discussed. Or at least the first sign of any intent at reduction anywhere.

I think that - the above cuts to agencies - combined with ACA overhaul and tax reform will get us there. And tax reform doesn't have to be a net negative for the deficit, it's all in how it's done. Romney was skewered for his plan but I'd love to see Trump and the R's in Congress do something like what he proposed: lower tax rates across the board but do away with many of the credits and deductions, simplify the tax code and make it easier for people and businesses to be in compliance.

Repeal of ACA would increase deficits substantially:

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/245530-cbo-obamacare-repeal-would-add-353b-to-deficit

All due respect to the CBO but they're only asked to score the effects of policy proposals given to them, and per that article they measured the tax effects of a full repeal of the ACA as of 1/1/2016. Nearly everyone in Congress who supports the repeal of Obamacare believes a replacement is required and a phased approach is important. So no, I don't think a repeal and replace of the ACA would add $353B to the deficit.

I expect Trump to have an annual surplus at the end of his 4 years.

That would be good news - as the U.S. debt is starting to reach that problematic stage. However, how IS this going to happen? Trump's talking about tax cuts ( decreasing government revenue), and possible substantial Government expense increases (Military Expansion, Infrastructure Upgrades(badly needed), Nuclear armament overhaul etc . .).

This is only speculative, but this topic was discussed in my financial management class this past fall. That the decrease in corporate tax rates would tempt larger companies to bring back assets from overseas and invest it domestically. This would in turn increase the export value of the GDP and hopefully the countries ability to pay back debt. I mean it's his whole aim at bringing jobs back to the US, right?

It was discussed that the debt would continue to decrease until this approach gained some traction. Hypothetically. As was said, it's an odd time.

I agree with your thoughts on tax reform. Especially if combined with incentives to pay more tax here (at a reduced rate) vs. overseas.

I don't know about the "cost" of ACA overhaul (though I don't think it is in the range of the previous poster).

My point in posting this to Fleck was just to answer his question of "what's the plan". I agree with him, most of what we have heard thus far has been continue programs or spend more (ie. infrastructure). There needs to be some changes relative to saving (or increasing tax revenues; didn't say tax rates) to deal with this, our deficit and our debt.

http://www.msn.com/...r-AAm1b5Y?li=BBnb7Kz

I am not endorsing anything in this article, and quite frankly haven't read it very closely. Just attaching it as it is the first sign/indication of the "how" we have discussed. Or at least the first sign of any intent at reduction anywhere.

I gave it a quick read through. Not saying it's a good/bad plan ( if reducing deficit/debt this is one way to go), the problem here is that the Republicans, the incoming-president and his own staff are all, separately saying different things to different people AND this is NOT what Trump was saying out on the campaign trail (BIG cuts to Medicare & Medicaid). So hang on! It's about to get blustery and confusing! :)

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

agree with hanging on!!

not sure they are not to some degree on the same page. Sounds like from the article many of these things have been included in previous GOP plans at the house level. If anything I read it as Trump and his people going along with previous plans more than I expect they would out of the gate.

In terms of what he said on the campaign trail; again, if that is the bar (and I'm not saying it shouldn't be) I suspect you will be able to hang him from that bar regularly. Having not taken it seriously to begin with (hence not voting for him) my focus at the moment is on whether this administration as a whole is going to put forth a long term plan that I can take seriously relative to eliminating our deficits and reducing our debt. One that can be followed and evaluated.

From a damned if you do damned if you don't perspective; he will get crucified for not doing what he said on the campaign trail. If he does what's proposed in the article (even if it begins to solve the problem) he will get crucified by Meryl Streep et al for tanking the National Endowment of the Arts (and leaving us with football and MMA). Again, I am more focused on what is going to happen. This is my first indication of a plan.

Edit: to that end, up until now it had seemed your point was "what's the plan". That his campaign had included lots of promises but no real plans. And that R's were supposed to be small govt deficit hawks. I was just trying to point out this is the beginnings of a plan. Good or bad or what was promised, it appears to be a plan meant to reduce costs and the size of govt.

to that end, up until now it had seemed your point was "what's the plan". That his campaign had included lots of promises but no real plans. And that R's were supposed to be small govt deficit hawks. I was just trying to point out this is the beginnings of a plan. Good or bad or what was promised, it appears to be a plan meant to reduce costs and the size of govt.

Yes - this is true, and that article you referenced was the first that I had seen that went into any detail about what the plan was. I don't necessarily agree with it all, but at least the GOP is finally, going back to it's fundamentals and roots with huge cuts to budgets AND to government services. This will come as a shock to many I am sure - even GOP supporters and voters. THIS is always something that sounds good in an election, but the fact is, it's going to possibly introduce some hardship to some/many when you actually do it!

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

I agree. And more hardship in the form of SS wage taxes on higher income limits, means testing for SS recipients etc etc will be necessary to solve the problems we have over the long run. All are hardship related. Most will be necessary. I for one am happy we are having the beginnings of the conversation. Long way to go.

In a different thread I called myself fiscally conservative and socially moderate. I bet if you and I sat down and had a cheeseburger we would find ourselves not far apart on much. I have voted R my entire life; this past election I abstained at the top of the ticket, my first time ever.

If the R's are not going to do what you discuss above, then at some point, given my description of myself, they would have to help me with why I would continue to pull their lever.......