Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-22-2016, 05:05 PM
 
882 posts, read 689,191 times
Reputation: 905

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p View Post
Trump is also going to borrow tons and tons of money at increasingly expensive rates and driving up inflation. Both are hidden taxes on the population. And worse, they are taxes that last for years, even decades.

That $4,500 tax saving (assuming your math is correct) will be eaten away and then some by the Trump economic policy.

This is why supply side economics have been debunked thousand times over, it does not work and it will never work. Whatever savings you get in the beginning will be more than eaten away by the cost you have to pay a short time after.
.
Oh you mean like Obama getting $780 Billion for a fiscal stimulus with no accountability for where the money went ("guess there weren't as many shovel ready jobs as we thought"...yuck, yuck...yeah, real funny). Yep inflation went through the roof with that one.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-23-2016, 07:06 AM
 
4,369 posts, read 3,726,103 times
Reputation: 2479
Quote:
Originally Posted by Independentthinking View Post
Oh you mean like Obama getting $780 Billion for a fiscal stimulus with no accountability for where the money went ("guess there weren't as many shovel ready jobs as we thought"...yuck, yuck...yeah, real funny). Yep inflation went through the roof with that one.

Some of that money went to projects in Beverly Hills or the Bay Area which definitely don't need any federal money. They could be completely cut off from the federal government and be fine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2016, 07:25 AM
 
13,711 posts, read 9,238,960 times
Reputation: 9845
Quote:
Originally Posted by Independentthinking View Post
Oh you mean like Obama getting $780 Billion for a fiscal stimulus with no accountability for where the money went ("guess there weren't as many shovel ready jobs as we thought"...yuck, yuck...yeah, real funny). Yep inflation went through the roof with that one.


You don't seem to understand the fundamental difference between creating money and borrowing money.

What you should do, is go learn economics so you can be better educated about what is going to happen.
.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2016, 12:38 PM
 
882 posts, read 689,191 times
Reputation: 905
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p View Post
You don't seem to understand the fundamental difference between creating money and borrowing money.

What you should do, is go learn economics so you can be better educated about what is going to happen.
.

Oh my. Fresh off being eviscerated in the other thread, now you're think you're going to engage me in an Economics debate? Hilarious! I hardly think you could debate anyone in an Economics argument.

When someone goes into plausible deniability when confronted with facts they can't retort, I don't waste any more time with them (I get very bored with that style of debating). As stated in the other thread, I'm sorry if I pierced your bubble. The best thing for you at this point is that play doh, therapy dogs, and a counselor. I can't help you any more than that.

Take care.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2016, 06:18 PM
 
Location: San Francisco
136 posts, read 197,019 times
Reputation: 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Independentthinking View Post
You have no idea what the "popular vote" would be because campaign strategy involves winning the most electoral votes, not the "popular vote". Had you been to one of the battleground states, you could have easily compared how much campaigning was done there as opposed to place like California or Alabama (a fully "blue" and "red' state).
Strategy or no, Clinton won the popular vote, which means something. More Americans voted for her than the loud imperial mouthpiece.

It's time to consider abandoning the electoral college. This is the second time in 16 years a candidate won the electoral college without winning the popular vote.

As a lifelong Californian, it's always bothered my that my state does not figure in the presidential election. Tiny New Hampshire has more influence because the primary elections always decide the candidates before the California primary. In the general election, candidates do not campaign in the Golden State, the most populous, most diverse, and most dynamic state in the nation.

Getting rid of the electoral college would put an end to that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2016, 06:32 PM
 
28,115 posts, read 63,692,777 times
Reputation: 23268
It's because we are the United States with emphasis on States... each State has a say under the Constitution.

Anyone only need look at the 2008 Primary between Obama and Clinton.

How did Obama beat Clinton when Clinton got more votes???

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democr...rimaries,_2008

If you change the system it only follows the candidates will also change strategy...

The Presidential Race has always been about the Electoral College...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2016, 07:06 PM
 
10,920 posts, read 6,915,650 times
Reputation: 4942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner View Post
It's because we are the United States with emphasis on States... each State has a say under the Constitution.

Anyone only need look at the 2008 Primary between Obama and Clinton.

How did Obama beat Clinton when Clinton got more votes???

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democr...rimaries,_2008

If you change the system it only follows the candidates will also change strategy...

The Presidential Race has always been about the Electoral College...
People understand this - they just don't agree with it. And I'm not sure I do, either.

And yes, if Trump had won the popular vote but lost the electoral college, I'd still feel the same way. I've always thought it was a stupid system that didn't make a whole lot of sense in today's world.


But it's in our constitution - so it's likely never changing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2016, 07:17 PM
 
28,115 posts, read 63,692,777 times
Reputation: 23268
It's all about protecting minority voices and the right to for a place at the table...

Without an Electoral College many States would become insignificant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2016, 07:21 PM
 
10,920 posts, read 6,915,650 times
Reputation: 4942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner View Post
It's all about protecting minority voices and the right to for a place at the table...

Without an Electoral College many States would become insignificant.
I understand that - but at the same time, it makes votes in populated states less valuable. Is it fair that someone's voice in a less populated state has a larger per capita value than one's vote from a more populated state? Take WY - ones per capita value is much higher than most other states. Of course, WY is sure to go R in most elections - so this doesn't mean much overall in the electoral vote count - but I do still feel it's fundamentally wrong on some level.

As well, the electoral system, as just pointed out, causes presidential candidates to focus on a select few states. I guess it'd shift to politicians focusing on more populated areas if the electoral system were abolished...so I understand the reverse concern.

I just think our system could be improved somehow - while it's great that it gives a voice to smaller states - I feel like many voices are not heard in the current system. Which just feels unfair.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2016, 07:26 PM
 
28,115 posts, read 63,692,777 times
Reputation: 23268
As long as we are a collection of States I don't see it changing...

The Senate represents the States... no matter how large or small they are equal.

The House Represents the People... so size matters.

Call me sentimental... but I really do root for the underdog or little guy...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:02 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top