Holy **** at the wsj oped

Same **** we've been saying in here for like 3 months?

Well for the WSJ to call the Republican nominee a sociopath does seem noteworthy. Plus they point out the "sadism" in attacking Mrs. Khan.

Hoya,

He only needed 12 paragraphs tho

lol, nh

JMO:

That sounds horrible.

But I won't complain if others like it (I expect this to be an outlier position). By the way, who the hell are you? Where have you been since 2006?

That sounds EXCELLENT and like the perfect thing for this thread. Please post it.

I am a long-time lurker. I read threads but don't often feel the need to participate in discussion. I do have a record of doing well in various PEEHS contests over the years, but that's probably my biggest claim to fame.

Google Doc

Rather than editorialize off the top, I will state the following. Everything between 1980 and 2016 is as factual as can be. Revenues and spending are taken from OMB, population figures are accurate. I converted every inflation-adjusted number to 2016 dollars using the BLS calculator in the past week.

Below 2016 is all experiments and postulations. The 2017 budget numbers are projections. The four sets of numbers from 2019-2022 are the averages per capita of the four administrations. The 4585/13119 and 5401/15453 are the Hillary 2026 spending projections via her 1.25t tax increase and 1.45t spending increase. The other numbers are me trying to figure out Trump's revenue and spending projections. The 3.01/3.3 trillion I believe is the accurate spending, but because of his tax cuts, the source I used said Trump would incur an additional 1.7t in debt interest. So the 3.3t number looks good per capita historically, but if you add the 1.7t in interest, it becomes less so. The last set of numbers below everything was because I was curious earlier tonight, so I performed the same calculations for Canada and the UK in the current year.

Hmm...came at it from a different angle.

What are some of the conclusions you've drawn about the different administrations' spending policies?

Just seeing all those 11-digit numbers affirms my belief that both Republicans and Democrats are beyond saving from within.

That's one of many reasons I'm voting for Gary Johnson.

My 2 cents after looking at it, I think you should put the year on the far left, and freeze the first column so it can be read while scrolling, and I also think you should add GDP, and look at each respective deficit or suprlus as a percentage of GDP per year.

You have a point. I was like 'why do you need to scroll' and then I realized that it renders perfectly for me because I have it in the correctly-sized window. Think I fixed all of the visual issues.

The Republicans lost their sense of fiscal discipline at the federal level with the election of Bush, and given the squawking surrounding the sequestration, still haven't found it. At this point, given what we've been spending, tax cuts are basically off the table for me. Even if we start cutting spending now, we can't afford to lose any revenue to balance our books.

The most recent interesting year is 2009. Normally, or at least how it worked in the years I looked at, the incoming President's inaugural year is covered by a budget passed under his predecessor. That's why I put the lines where I did, to show where the President starts his budgetary control. However in 2009, because of the fiscal crisis, the budget didn't end up passing until March of 2009, and thus that first year budget had the full approval of a Dem Congress and Obama.

In addition to the GDP suggestion of domer, I had thought maybe of trying to break out specific spending sections (mandatory vs discretionary, interest, social security, defense, others?) year-by-year, but I feel other places might be able to illustrate that better than I on a simple spreadsheet.

That WSJ editorial is great.

"Theodore Shoebat". That is an A+ name for a kook right there.

This isn't addressed to schu in particular, but non politards may not have seen the Tragic Death of the GOP thread where we have long discussed the heavy demographic headwinds the GOP faces. In 4 years time, a whole bunch more olds will be dead and will have been replaced by youngs. The country will be even more non-white. In the most recent CNN poll, Clinton was leading 65-32 among voters under 45 and Trump was coming fourth, on 7% among nonwhite voters, behind both Johnson and Stein.

Bear in mind that after the loss in 2012, there were a couple of reports released by GOP thinktanks calling for a re-orientation of the party to appeal more to minorities, Hispanics in particular. Results: Donald Trump as nominee in 2016.

fun fact: the GOP strategist who wrote the post-2012 report announced today she has left the Republican Party and is voting for Clinton

lol, perfect.

god damn the WSJ op ed was fire

also



start at 12:00 for an absolute evisceration

He legit looked like he was about to tear up at the end. More emotion than expected.

I think I got my thoughts across pretty clearly in six words:

It's important to distinguish an editorial from an op-ed which that WSJ article was. An op-ed is basically a long letter to the editor.

Thread has definitely been low on Shark Sandwich content of late.

Also, re this, near unbelievable that anyone in 2016 is capable of unironically uttering the sentence "You know what's on the Internet is true".

right wing derposphere taking aim at the khan family re their imaginary muslim brotherhood/impose sharia law/clinton foundation links is a new low i'd say

i wonder if there are any repubs doing this today

Trump now saying he thinks the election will be rigged. Hedging three months before the election is a bold new strategy