The Next President Will Be a One-Term President.

[Guest032516]

Maybe it would be best for the GOP to control the Congress and let Elizabeth Warren be president.

I think we are about to have another economic crash that will be at least as bad as the last one. Europe may be about to dip into its third recession since 2008, including Germany. The slow crappy recovery we have been making has been done entirely by printing money (quantitative easing) and borrowing huge amounts of money. China, Russia, Brazil, India and a number of others are considering discarding the dollar at the international currency because we have been devaluing it.

Right now we are paying about $400 Billion in interest including on Social Security trust fund.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...u-should-know/

But we have been able to borrow money at about 2.4% interest. But if interest rates finally go back to their historic levels (about 4-5%), we could end up with ANNUAL debt service heading towards $700-$900 billion annually.

When the financial reckoning comes, we are in serious trouble. And the economic signs do not look good right now, no matter what Zanziboob thinks.

So, I think the crash ahead will be huge (again) and whatever party holds the WH will pay dearly.

I think Obama will be lucky like Clinton. The dotcom bubble burst during Clinton's last year, but he was out of office before the stock downturn hit the job market. So Bush go the blame for the 20001 slump instead.

I think Obama will leave office right as the next downturn occurs, so the next President will get the blame for the 2016/2017 downturn.

I hope it is some big government progressive. Let's watch him or her struggle to show how government can fix everything.

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Maybe it would be best for the GOP to control the Congress and let Elizabeth Warren be president.

I think we are about to have another economic crash that will be at least as bad as the last one. Europe may be about to dip into its third recession since 2008, including Germany. The slow crappy recovery we have been making has been done entirely by printing money (quantitative easing) and borrowing huge amounts of money. China, Russia, Brazil, India and a number of others are considering discarding the dollar at the international currency because we have been devaluing it.

Right now we are paying about $400 Billion in interest including on Social Security trust fund.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...u-should-know/

But we have been able to borrow money at about 2.4% interest. But if interest rates finally go back to their historic levels (about 4-5%), we could end up with ANNUAL debt service heading towards $700-$900 billion annually.

When the financial reckoning comes, we are in serious trouble. And the economic signs do not look good right now, no matter what Zanziboob thinks.

So, I think the crash ahead will be huge (again) and whatever party holds the WH will pay dearly.

I think Obama will be lucky like Clinton. The dotcom bubble burst during Clinton's last year, but he was out of office before the stock downturn hit the job market. So Bush go the blame for the 20001 slump instead.

I think Obama will leave office right as the next downturn occurs, so the next President will get the blame for the 2016/2017 downturn.

I hope it is some big government progressive. Let's watch him or her struggle to show how government can fix everything.

Get out while you can!!! They are currently scaremongering about deflation and have applauded Japan's own version of QE. They are laying the groundwork to print more - you would think eventually inflation would hit with a greatly expanded money supply!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Bush got the blame for the 2001 slump instead.

Actually, Bush didn't get the blame for 2001, because just about every economist who was honest set the downturn in Spring 2000 ..... and the AFL-CIO hammered Clinton (and Gore) in December 2000 for cooking the books on the job losses/"gains" in the later part of 2000 (the BLS used same stats for October as were posted for September 2000, and a methodology adjustment skewered the numbers for the last half of 2000).

The media actually finally choked on the FACT that it wasn't Bush and said so.

I purchased a small block of stock in a specific company (after some research), which I believe reflects domestic consumer attitudes and foreign trade, to monitor the cycling in this last half of 2014. I was tempted to sell out at small profit, but hesitated to see if it would recover from the recent downturn of confidence domestically as the elections approached. IMO the minimal loss risk was a worthwhile investment to watch the trend ... specifically the volume of shares traded.

[i'va biggen]

One term president....Where have I heard that before???

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Get out while you can!!! They are currently scaremongering about deflation and have applauded Japan's own version of QE. They are laying the groundwork to print more - you would think eventually inflation would hit with a greatly expanded money supply!

spoken like a true patriot!

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

One term president....Where have I heard that before???

It was at your monthly Independents for Socialism meeting.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Actually, Bush didn't get the blame for 2001, because just about every economist who was honest set the downturn in Spring 2000 .....

Let me be clear, I do not blame Bush for the dotcom bubble bursting.

But while you may not think he got the blame, it is not economists that determine who gets the blame. At least not in the political sense.

It is public perception and a significant chunk of the public blames Bush - or at least they don't blame Clinton. And Democrats have pounded home the idea that it was Bush's fault because - hey! - look at all the job losses in 2001 and after.

And the average person is too stupid to figure things out.

Anyhow, I hope we do not have another meltdown. But if we do, I hope it starts on Obama's watch so that blame is properly assigned.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Let me be clear, I do not blame Bush for the dotcom bubble bursting.

But while you may not think he got the blame, it is not economists that determine who gets the blame. At least not in the political sense.

It is public perception and a significant chunk of the public blames Bush - or at least they don't blame Clinton. And Democrats have pounded home the idea that it was Bush's fault because - hey! - look at all the job losses in 2001 and after.

And the average person is too stupid to figure things out.

Anyhow, I hope we do not have another meltdown. But if we do, I hope it starts on Obama's watch so that blame is properly assigned.

Bush and the GOP get the blame for the much worse 2008 meltdown.

Many maintain that the economy like any market is nothing more than a business cycle that no President can do much about. If they could no President would ever have a bad cycle. So like the QB of a football team, they get way more credit and to much blame. But that is what politics is, a blame game.

GW Bush legacy was starting a costly war that had no endpoint.
Obama's will be Obamacare.
History will not be to kind to one.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

It was at our monthly Socialism meeting.

[JD Barleycorn]

Actually, it is statistically possible and likely.

[Whirlaway]

Four more years of a left-of-center president is what this country may need to get us back on a corrected course of economic expansion and prosperity.

- Lower tax rates
- Less regulation
- More energy independence (drill baby drill, alternatives, natural gas, nuclear)
- Smaller government
- More power returned to the states

I would enjoy a 2016 presidential race between a Elizabeth Warren and a constitutional conservative candidate. Sadly, the GOP line up is pretty piss poor.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

- More power returned to the states

.

How did you feel about State rights during the Ebola scare. Did you blame the states for not doing enough ... or did you think the Fed's should have done more.


BTW how is the Kansas experiments of lower taxes working out? That Gov should be wildly popular, do you think he will get reelected?

[Whirlaway]

Yes. The Feds should do more and the states should do more (especially in the face of in action by the feds).

At an unemployment rate of 4.8%, I would say Kansas is doing better than Texas and 35 other states that have higher unemployment and higher taxes. Tomorrow night we will find out what the voters of Kansas think. With no Democratic Senator running; Democrats have been able to spend a ton of money against Brownback, driving down his ratings. Also, a strong Libertarian candidate is drawing up to 4% from Brownback re-election.

Originally Posted by WTF

How did you feel about State rights during the Ebola scare. Did you blame the states for not doing enough ... or did you think the Fed's should have done more.





BTW how is the Kansas experiments of lower taxes working out? That Gov should be wildly popular, do you think he will get reelected?



Brownback may lose but not because of lower taxes.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Yes. The Feds should do more and the states should do more (especially in the face of in action by the feds).

At an unemployment rate of 4.8%, I would say Kansas is doing better than Texas and 35 other states that have higher unemployment and higher taxes. Tomorrow night we will find out what the voters of Kansas think. With no Democratic Senator running; Democrats have been able to spend a ton of money against Brownback, driving down his ratings. Also, a strong Libertarian candidate is drawing up to 4% from Brownback re-election.

Right, Kansas is doing great.....except for that projected $900,000,000.00 budget shortfall by 2019 that is directly attributable to Brownback's tea party tax cuts.

Same GOP story as usual: tax cuts will stimulate the economy, create jobs, blah blah blah. The rich got their tax cuts but.....None of it happened and even after Brownback has gutted Kansas school funding, libraries, cut social services, and continued to promise even more tax cuts, Kansas' bond rating has been downgraded by Moody's and S&P.

But, oh yes....it is the democrats fault....and probably that liberal media too.

[Whirlaway]

It sounds like you think this election is a referendum on the tax cuts. We will know very soon if the people of Kansas oppose the Brownback tax cuts......

Answer me this: If the tax cuts have been so disastrous, why won’t Mr. Davis (Dem Candidate) pledge to repeal them?

And you do realize that school funding in Kansas is actually at an all-time high. Total per-pupil spending has increased to $12,960 from $12,283 over four years?

Originally Posted by timpage

Right, Kansas is doing great.....except for that projected $900,000,000.00 budget shortfall by 2019 that is directly attributable to Brownback's tea party tax cuts.

Same GOP story as usual: tax cuts will stimulate the economy, create jobs, blah blah blah. The rich got their tax cuts but.....None of it happened and even after Brownback has gutted Kansas school funding, libraries, cut social services, and continued to promise even more tax cuts, Kansas' bond rating has been downgraded by Moody's and S&P.

But, oh yes....it is the democrats fault....and probably that liberal media too.