[Vengeance]

Nicodimas, on 27 September 2016 - 02:21 AM, said:

The interest rate was an amazing point...that politicians don't want to talk about...Yellen playing politics...etc etc

You owe 20 trillion...what happens if you raise rates... Math wins..is what happens.

nope.

[Nicodimas]

Explain .. Vengeance.. This info :

http://www.forbes.co...w/#6a74066c7ff0

http://danielamerman...a/Conflict.html

[Vengeance]

The rise of interest rates would be for borrowing new debt or rather for loaning new debt. It doesn't effect current debt or payment obligations. What is effect is short term loans that banks provide each other and what the government provides to banks and other institutions. Any loan that is longer then a short term loan isnt really effected much so 10, 30 yr bonds. It effects money borrowed for future construction jobs and for future home loans. Only a small portion of the us debt is short term fed funds. Say 8 trillion or so. Which while a substantial number isn't 18 trillion. Raising the rate before the economy is robust enough to with stand it has pitfalls of its own. Just as not raising the rate has more pitfalls. To insinuate that the decision is simply a political one while a solid sound bite ignores the reality that rushing to raise rates can have a harmful impact on the nessasary job growth that is required to pay off the debt to begin with. Plus if he gave a shit about actual reduction of debt then he would before closing the loop holes that allow Realestate developers like himself to pay 0 income taxes. He would before raising the tax rate on dividends to that or regular income. And he would be for closing corporate tax holes that allow companies to leave profits offshore indefinitely and pay 0 taxes on them while using them for dividend payouts.

Basic fear monger on a complex subject that I doubt he has spent more then a glance at in the last 10 years. After all no bank in NYC will give him a loan. For that he has to go to Putins Russian pals. That should help underscore how little he actually understand of national economics.

A counties debt is not like a house holds. Especially a country that is able to issue debt in its own currency. Which we are lucky enough to do.

I.e we print the money that we owe.

Another thing to keep in mind is that rate changes in the us rate effect the growth of the entire worlds economy.

While it is a politicians ploy to attempt to reduce a complex subject to one of a sound bite, it is an educated and thoughtful electorate who knows that no subject is as simple as a politician makes it out to be and can not be solved with a magic wand. But rather only through thoughtful analysis and hard work.

The reason that you haven't ever heard a nominee talk about the fed is that if they become president then they are going to have to deal with a fed that attempts to be independent of political parties. So by politicalizing it as a nominee you are saying if you aren't political now you sure as shit will be when I am president. Which undermines the fed, which undermines the faith that the markets have in its ability to make rational long term decisions. Which undermines the precieved opinion on how our country will react to financial crashes. Which intimately undermines our standing in the world. All faith is precieved it is a fool who attempts to undermine it for personal self glory. If you want to see a politicalized monitory policy you need look no further then Argentina under there late presidents. Or Zimbabwe, Russia,china...

The reason why the world trades in dollars is because they perceive that we are reasonable and that our justice system and monitory policy are less political all other major countries.

End rant.

[HoosierDaddy]

You wanna, you know, like merge those Venge?

Any time you argue with a moderator during a debate, it's not going well. You should be arguing with the other candidate or speaker. However, that's Trump 101: Bully, bully, bully and speak in vague generalities that allow you to continue to put on the facade you have any positions whatsoever.

Most unqualified POTUS candidate I think I've ever watched.

[Nicodimas]

I like the idea of letting only one person talk at a time.. Like its 2016? Why are they able to interrupt each other. Maybe I'm missing the finer points of the debate... But couldn't you give them the time and mute the other one.

I think this would have made for a better debate

Trump however stating mic issues is classic though.

[Vengeance]

HoosierDaddy, on 28 September 2016 - 12:38 AM, said:

You wanna, you know, like merge those Venge?

Any time you argue with a moderator during a debate, it's not going well. You should be arguing with the other candidate or speaker. However, that's Trump 101: Bully, bully, bully and speak in vague generalities that allow you to continue to put on the facade you have any positions whatsoever.

Most unqualified POTUS candidate I think I've ever watched.

On my phone so it can wait till tomorrow.

[Slow Ben]

Nicodimas, on 28 September 2016 - 01:01 AM, said:

I like the idea of letting only one person talk at a time.. Like its 2016? Why are they able to interrupt each other. Maybe I'm missing the finer points of the debate... But couldn't you give them the time and mute the other one.

I think this would have made for a better debate

Trump however stating mic issues is classic though.

The moderator should have a mute button like on Around the Horn.

[Mentalist]

Vengy, no offence, but you guys elect your judges. How does this make your justice system non-political?

[Terez]

Some judges are elected; some aren't. It's political either way since the unelected judges are appointed by elected officials.

[Nevyn]

Terez, on 28 September 2016 - 01:34 PM, said:

Some judges are elected; some aren't. It's political either way since the unelected judges are appointed by elected officials.

That's not remotely the same thing. Once appointed, a judge does not need to fundraise nor worry about votes. An elected judge needs to get re-elected, leaving him/her vulnerable to influence and also potentially more concerned with the opinion of the masses than the law.

[Terez]

Nevyn, on 28 September 2016 - 02:23 PM, said:

Terez, on 28 September 2016 - 01:34 PM, said:

Some judges are elected; some aren't. It's political either way since the unelected judges are appointed by elected officials.

That's not remotely the same thing.

I didn't say it was.

[amphibian]

Nevyn, on 28 September 2016 - 02:23 PM, said:

Terez, on 28 September 2016 - 01:34 PM, said:

Some judges are elected; some aren't. It's political either way since the unelected judges are appointed by elected officials.

That's not remotely the same thing. Once appointed, a judge does not need to fundraise nor worry about votes. An elected judge needs to get re-elected, leaving him/her vulnerable to influence and also potentially more concerned with the opinion of the masses than the law.

Going by how Scalia operated, even Supreme Court appointed/confirmed judges can be influenced over time with trips and speech money. It's all political.

[Terez]

amphibian, on 28 September 2016 - 04:14 PM, said:

Nevyn, on 28 September 2016 - 02:23 PM, said:

Terez, on 28 September 2016 - 01:34 PM, said:

Some judges are elected; some aren't. It's political either way since the unelected judges are appointed by elected officials.

That's not remotely the same thing. Once appointed, a judge does not need to fundraise nor worry about votes. An elected judge needs to get re-elected, leaving him/her vulnerable to influence and also potentially more concerned with the opinion of the masses than the law.

Going by how Scalia operated, even Supreme Court appointed/confirmed judges can be influenced over time with trips and speech money. It's all political.

Judges even tend to tailor their rulings over the course of their careers to make them more attractive as high level appointees, which is not all that different from pandering to voters. Once they get to SCOTUS they can do whatever they want, and we've seen SCOTUS justices make unexpected shifts, at least on certain key rulings, after their appointments. Some like Scalia might be influenced by perks; others might be influenced by concern for their historical legacy, as some have said about Roberts.

[Vengeance]

Mentalist, on 28 September 2016 - 01:29 PM, said:

Vengy, no offence, but you guys elect your judges. How does this make your justice system non-political?

It is still less political then say someone picking up the phone and telling a judge that they need to make a ruling a specific way. Federal judges that are appointed for life are less likely to be extremely influenced by political consideration then for the rule of law. Now the question that comes into consideration is if the judges deem the constitution to be a living document that can change with the times and interpretation. Or is it a dead document that has to be interpreted literally.

That is where the rub is.

[HoosierDaddy]

Mentalist, on 28 September 2016 - 01:29 PM, said:

Vengy, no offence, but you guys elect your judges. How does this make your justice system non-political?

The judges that matter are most certainly not elected, and appointed for long periods of time, if not life.

Local judges, state judges: Blah. Don't mean shit. Federal judges are legit and where anything worthwhile happens.

[worry]

This is the good stuff: http://www.newyorker...debating-skills



That and the last paragraph just about say it all.

[Darkwatch]

The more I hear about the importance of Trump's kids in this campaign the more and more worried I am that one of them is going to also run for president in the future.

[Tiste Simeon]

Darkwatch, on 29 September 2016 - 09:23 PM, said:

The more I hear about the importance of Trump's kids in this campaign the more and more worried I am that one of them is going to also run for president in the future.

Must be scary if it has made you come out of hibernation!

[Terez]

Darkwatch, on 29 September 2016 - 09:23 PM, said:

The more I hear about the importance of Trump's kids in this campaign the more and more worried I am that one of them is going to also run for president in the future.

I'm sure they've thought about it, but as time goes on I suspect we'll come to see this episode in our political history as a low point (hopefully this is as low as it gets) and that any association with Trump will be considered toxic.

[Tiste Simeon]

Hope so! If what DW says is true, it seems he might be thinking about establishing another political legacy family. I shudder to think of that...