2016 US Presidential election thread

[Oberon]

Trump has just talked directly to the leader of Taiwan, the first time a President-Elect has done so since 1979. This coming at a time when the mainland is especially annoyed at Taiwan because a pro-independence party candidate was elected in May. So, major tensions between Taiwan and China, and Trump throws some petrol on the fire, probably because he's been looking to build a hotel in Taipei since September.

The PRCs response should be.....interesting.....still, I imagine the US arms industry just exploded in delight, the potential for the ramping up on cross-strait tensions will mean Taiwan will be in the market for every anti-ship and anti-aircraft missile it can lay its hands on.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

Exactly, all need to contribute, not just the working Joe but that's what the corporations want. No tax for them or else....

Cut spending on what? Education, military, infra structure, law enforcement, social security, research...? The problem is while a lot of tax money is wasted (not just in the US it's a global problem) the majority of it goes into the aforementioned sectors were it is needed (and when it comes to social security I'm talking about people in need, not those too lazy to work, cut their benefits until they are willing to work). There is the problem right there. The question is how much and where can spending be cut or optimized without letting the whole system collapse? Just reducing spending and cutting taxes in general can ruin parts of your system. Over here every government since the end of the cold war has cut back on military spending and now we're in a state where barely anything is still functioning and plenty of our equipment that looks good on paper isn't ready because we don't buy spare parts for it or it's 50 years old or both... Right now the German military is pretty much not combat ready whatsoever. Our infrastructure has been neglected as well and we'll have to pay a lot for that in the not so distant future (bridges falling apart for example=.
It's all not that simple.

(darn, now I know why Blitzkrieg said I was a left oddball)

Cut spending on everything, across the board, but especially social programs. The system will be fine, it is more danger of collapsing due to excessive govt debt and spending than anything else.

[Buddahaid]

That will force issues and I'm curious how it would be absorbed? Something would have to deal with the energy deflected in such a policy.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Cut spending on everything, across the board, but especially social programs. The system will be fine, it is more danger of collapsing due to excessive govt debt and spending than anything else.

OK let's do it!

1. Steve, get out of your flat. No more free housing for you!
2. Academics from all over the world go to the US as their education standard for their native population will drop even further (and it isn't glorious to begin with from what I hear at least)
3. Afghanistan, Iraq, Europe, get your acts together the US forces will pull out (on this point I actually could agree, but it will cost hundred of thousands of jobs in the military and the suppliers but might be cheaper in the long run)
4. Hope you don't mind the potholes in the roads and generally decaying infra structure which will make investors go elsewhere.
5. ...

You see, it isn't simple. You can't get a simple solution for a complex question. All has to be in balance. Taxes and spending. There is spending that can't be cut like infra structure up keeping and education. Education is what makes a country great. Look at Germany, we've got pretty much no natural resources and yet we are the leading economy in Europe. That is only achievable because we have smart people developing good products that the world market wants (or gets tricked into buying...thanks VW...).

But we're running in circles so I'll leave it at this.

[Platapus]

Cutting government programs is probably a good strategic idea, but they would have to be cut slowly so give the people and the markets time to adjust.

The individual states will also need time to ramp up their social programs to be able to take up the slack.

The problem is that a lot of people want a quick fix. A member of the House wants demonstrable results in one year as they are on a 2 year election term.

What representative will approve a plan that will result in a temporary disadvantage during their term but may show benefit in the future... when they may not be in office? We don't have politicians like that.

It took us decades to get in to this mess, it will probably take decades to get out. What we need is a multi-generational commitment to fix our problems. What's the chance of that happening in our political environment?

The depressing reality may be that politically we can't fix this problem but will have to wait until the US crashes and then rebuild.

[Oberon]

The burden of the spending could probably be off-loaded onto individual state governments in order to increase their autonomy...however, those states would then likely either go straight into the red or have to cut everything which would lead to more than a few problems.
You could, in theory, privatise a lot of infrastructure, roads and so forth, which would probably result in the creation of a lot of toll booths in order for private companies to recap the losses, and it wouldn't necessarily result in better roads...although judging by the state of some of the roads you see on US television I guess the only way is up.
A cut in welfare programs would have a knock-on effect in other areas, greater homelessness, a potential spike in crime rates and civil disorder as disaffected people who are unable to gain employment due to the gradual rise in automation in the workplace find themselves removed from society...and of course this disturbances would continue longer than normal because there wouldn't be as many police around to enforce the law because of a cut in their budgets...unless of course you privatise the police, but who would pay the private police force? If the state government couldn't then perhaps gated communities would spring up where the individual citizens paid for police protection.
Privatised education would be possible, but each university would need to make sure that it balanced the cost of education with the specialist learning that it could deliver. Some places could run on with their name alone, MIT, Caltech, and so on, but others would find themselves with a decline in student numbers as more and more people are unable to afford to get into university. You could off-set this cut in education programs with a rise in apprenticeship programs from individual companies, but there would probably be not enough programs to cater for demand. Again, privatising the education system could have these gated communities paying for a school for their children to attend, although the quality of the education that these children would receive would vary wildly from community to community, I imagine more than a few communities for example would be loathe to teach about the theory of evolution.
Likewise there's the possibility of home schooling, but again you have that problem of the quality of education varying wildly.
In short, the onus of paying for services would fall heavily upon the individual citizen, and those who could not pay would not receive these services. It would dramatically widen the already growing gulf between those who have and those who do not. I could see gated communities spreading like wildfire, large scale unrest leading to some very violent situations, ala the 1992 Rodney King riots but a lot, lot worse.
The global standing of the US would plummet as people took one look at what was happening to it and stayed well away, unless of course they were rich enough to go and spend some time in a gated community away from the troubles and attend the better half of opportunities in the US, and there would be some good opportunities there since we know that there are some smart and talented people in the US. In short, the US would become a bit like Bahrain, fantastic in the good parts and dismal in the bad parts with a tremendous differance between the two, or perhaps a bit like Brazil, with epic skyscrapers being found within a few miles of shanty towns.
Eventually this divide would lead to an attempt, be it successful or not, to overthrow the government by a disaffected civilian populace, how successful this uprising would be would depend on how well protected the government would be...which if there was a reduced government spending that would mean a reduced military, and those who are in the military would probably have lower morale because of a constant comparison with how things were before the cuts (like how people always compare the Royal Navy of WWII with that of today) and they could well join with the uprising and thus help it succeed. Private military contractors could help balance that force, but they would stay around only so long as they were paid. Rather feudal really with the king and his private military force trying to keep control over the masses.
As for the global consequences, well, with the potential rise in US isolationism at the moment then we're already seeing the onset of it, the Middle East would smash itself into pieces trying to reset national boundaries, Iran and Saudi Arabia would definitely go nuclear, and whether they'd be content to engage in proxy wars like the US and USSR in the Cold War or whether they'd go full Abu Hajaar is another matter, I doubt Israel would sit idly by while they went nuclear, so they might well wind up having to destroy Israel first, and Israel would go full Samson on their way down. Now, the US could up oil production rates (depending on whether individual oil companies would want to invest in US oil) but I don't think it could offset the inevitable rise in oil prices which the self-destruction of the Middle East would create, and this would benefit Russia greatly, enabling them to complete their arms modernisation scheme at the same time that the US would find themselves potentially falling behind in military technology. Europe wouldn't stand a chance and would eventually flip over to a pro-Moscow stance, although Eastern Europe wouldn't go quietly, so you've got the possibility of a war there, and it would depend a lot on how much the likes of Paris, Berlin, and London would be willing to stand up for the Baltics and Poland as to whether it would evolve into a great European war.
On the other side of the map in the Pacific, China would find itself in a Western Pacific unchallenged by the US military, so various nations would flip to Beijing, with the exception of Japan and South Korea. A form of SEATO would probably come about with Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, maybe Pakistan and Thailand banding together to create a counter-balancing force to the might of the PRC. The Phillipines would probably flip towards whoever was looking like they might win in a military conflict, or perhaps just stay out entirely, like Yugoslavia.

That's just supposition, of course, things could pan out in completely different directions, no-one can be absolutely certain of events. However, eventually the US would find itself surrounded by other powerful nations, and at some point the interests of the US and the interests of these other powerful nations would clash, perhaps in South America, and it would be 1941 or 1917 all over again.

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

OK let's do it!

1. Steve, get out of your flat. No more free housing for you!
2. Academics from all over the world go to the US as their education standard for their native population will drop even further (and it isn't glorious to begin with from what I hear at least)
3. Afghanistan, Iraq, Europe, get your acts together the US forces will pull out (on this point I actually could agree, but it will cost hundred of thousands of jobs in the military and the suppliers but might be cheaper in the long run)
4. Hope you don't mind the potholes in the roads and generally decaying infra structure which will make investors go elsewhere.
5. ...

You see, it isn't simple. You can't get a simple solution for a complex question. All has to be in balance. Taxes and spending. There is spending that can't be cut like infra structure up keeping and education. Education is what makes a country great. Look at Germany, we've got pretty much no natural resources and yet we are the leading economy in Europe. That is only achievable because we have smart people developing good products that the world market wants (or gets tricked into buying...thanks VW...).

But we're running in circles so I'll leave it at this.

Nor is it as complicated as people keep asserting.

example:
1. lower taxes while at the same time removing or severely curtailing exemptions.

[Platapus]

Good point, it would help to make the tax situation easier to understand.

Why have a high tax rate only to have associated deductions and exemptions? All that does is turn the tax season into an arms race of who can afford the bestest tax lawyer.

People like to complain that the US has the highest corporate tax in the universe as 35%. Yeah, that's the max tax rate, and it is high. But how many corporations actually pay 35%? If you are a business and you are paying 35%, the first thing you need to do is fire your tax lawyer.

It would be interesting to find out if there are any corporations in the US paying the full tax rate.

People who can't afford to hire a high price tax lawyer should not end up paying more taxes.

I don't think there is one answer to this. There may not be an economically, politically, and socially acceptable answer.

[eddie]

Defense spending could be cut, there is enough waste in their programs, that's for sure. All you have to do is look at the F-35 program, what a mess that is,lol

[August]

The key will be to keep the bureaucracy from making the tax cuts so painful that they become apparently unsustainable. When faced with a funding shortfall they will merrily lay off teachers, police and firemen but never themselves or their army of assistants or cut back their pet boondoggles.

I've long believed that our tax burden proportions are upside down. We give the most tax money to the government that is furthest away and least engaged with our needs. Sure a lot of that comes back in the forum of federal aid but it always comes back with expensive strings attached and adds a whole new level of bureaucracy to administer it at both ends of the chain.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

OK let's do it!

1. Steve, get out of your flat. No more free housing for you!

You're absolutely right. I talk to people about it, and they say I deserve it because of my service. I don't see it that way, but they offer it so I take it.

On the other hand I take the VA money because it's more than Social Security, which is money taken from people's paychecks as a guarantee against their retirement. We actually have congressmen calling that an "entitlement". We don't get a choice. The government takes that money, and now they change the rules on how you can get your money back.

I see a whole list of good points following that post, and everybody seems to have some good ideas, but I certainly don't have any answers. The only thing I can add is that what this country needs the most is for people to stop blaming each other and trying to find some real solutions.

Some money could be saved by cutting government salaries. "Senator" and "Congressman" were meant to be a public service, not a high-paying career option. If elected officials had to live on minimum wage they might be more motivated to actually work on the problems.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

OK let's do it!

1. Steve, get out of your flat. No more free housing for you!
2. Academics from all over the world go to the US as their education standard for their native population will drop even further (and it isn't glorious to begin with from what I hear at least)
3. Afghanistan, Iraq, Europe, get your acts together the US forces will pull out (on this point I actually could agree, but it will cost hundred of thousands of jobs in the military and the suppliers but might be cheaper in the long run)
4. Hope you don't mind the potholes in the roads and generally decaying infra structure which will make investors go elsewhere.
5. ...

You see, it isn't simple. You can't get a simple solution for a complex question. All has to be in balance. Taxes and spending. There is spending that can't be cut like infra structure up keeping and education. Education is what makes a country great. Look at Germany, we've got pretty much no natural resources and yet we are the leading economy in Europe. That is only achievable because we have smart people developing good products that the world market wants (or gets tricked into buying...thanks VW...).

But we're running in circles so I'll leave it at this.

First, using a member as an example, not cool. Second, with the money I give to the govt I could buy Steve a house.

As for the other points, thank you. Yes, we need to stop being the world's police. I would love to see the military budget cut by 3/4. Academics from all over the world, go to Germany for your education, but try to hurry before it becomes an Islamic state.

As for potholes, you win. I support my taxes going to keep the roads in good shape.

Originally Posted by Oberon

The burden o

The global standing of the US would plummet as people took one look at what was happening to it and stayed well away, .....
.

Who.cares.

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

That will force issues and I'm curious how it would be absorbed? Something would have to deal with the energy deflected in such a policy.

I see, that's a way of saying welfare recipients would riot if we stop handing our money over to them? Interesting.

Originally Posted by Platapus

Cutting government programs is probably a good strategic idea, but they would have to be cut slowly so give the people and the markets time to adjust.

The individual states will also need time to ramp up their social programs to be able to take up the slack.

The problem is that a lot of people want a quick fix. A member of the House wants demonstrable results in one year as they are on a 2 year election term.

What representative will approve a plan that will result in a temporary disadvantage during their term but may show benefit in the future... when they may not be in office? We don't have politicians like that.

It took us decades to get in to this mess, it will probably take decades to get out. What we need is a multi-generational commitment to fix our problems. What's the chance of that happening in our political environment?

The depressing reality may be that politically we can't fix this problem but will have to wait until the US crashes and then rebuild.

Well, you are probably right. It would be important to focus on creating jobs and moving people into them and off welfare, slowly.

[Oberon]

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Who.cares.

Well, who would care indeed? Not many people, the rest of the world would adapt in some way or another, we got along fine enough before the US, and I'm sure that it wouldn't end the world if the US went away either.
We'd adapt.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

First, using a member as an example, not cool.

I used Steve as an example because most of us are somewhat familiar with his story. I'm glad he got a flat and would find it unfair to cancel that project. It was meant to show that a broad cut in social spending can easily hit the wrong people. It was not meant disrespectfully but was supposed to shock to get the point across.

@Steve
I apologize if my previous post has offended you. That was not the intention.

Who.cares.

Foreign investors who are important for your economy.

Well, you are probably right. It would be important to focus on creating jobs and moving people into them and off welfare, slowly.

With that I agree.