Potus ???

[GarethM]

37 minutes ago, Steven P said:

I'll stick these 2 responses together Gareth,

 

First bit is that you come across as an intelligent man in the other threads in this forum, knowledgeable with your comments. I've seen in many other forums where those with no knowledge in a subject just revert to insults and forum point scoring, which can poison a thread, but get the whole forum kind of agreeing that the poster is an idiot - as I said you appear to be intelligent, don't go down the route of throwing out insults just for the sake of posting a comment. You quoted comment above was really just a jumble of connected words with no real point or comment to make. 'Lefty' as far as I can tell is not really an insult, it is not a weird thing to have left wing views (and in a country that recently voted for a left government). So go your way, insults and appear to have no knowledge, or... keep up your reputation as one with knowledge.

 

In summary the video clip wasn't a bash at what Trump has done in his (4 years +) 6 weeks, the video clip was a response to a speech that Trump made and highlighting the discrepancies between what he has said. A man for the people, his base of the working classes, yet Sanders is highlighting that Trumps speech mentioned them exactly zero times, and his that plans did not include any benefits for that voter base (future plans not action to date, though his first term is a good reference point as to what his plans are).

 

His party were in charge for 4 years, Trumps reign before that was also 4 years. However there are many many reports filtering out of Trumps voter base being summarily sacked for being junior workers, or just working in the wrong department. 

Actually Bernie was mostly rambling about how Donald's not done this, whilst yes he was in power once before.

 

Joe and co, rolled back 99% of the good Donald on day 1 of their presidency because they knew the system and how to pretty much erase Donald's benefits, that's why in round two he's learnt the system and unlike the first time is going full on from the beginning and using musk and social media to exploit/document and highlight the waste so it's on public record.

 

People like Bernie have been there decades, happy to just let the status quo continue and reap very lucrative rewards.

 

Whilst Donald isn't perfect, a root and branch review of everything is about 50 years overdue, I'm betting next step will be open book accounts for all government spending.

 

Daylight being the best disinfectant and I have a feeling those senators that made a scene are not going to be in position for much longer.

 

We salute the rank not the man.

[Johnsond]

1 hour ago, Steven P said:

I've seen in many other forums where those with no knowledge in a subject just revert to insults and forum point scoring, which can poison a thread

Or alternatively worse still resort to making  up absolute lies and BS, it amuses me watching you trying to occupy the moral high ground. 

1 hour ago, Steven P said:

and in a country that recently voted for a left government

?? You know well the majority Labour have is built upon very weak foundations when it comes to actual voter numbers. Pretentious waffle SP in my humble opinion. 

Edited 9 hours ago by Johnsond

[GarethM]

I factor a lot through the fact that Donald's never been a senator, if like all previous presidents he had worked his way up the greasy pole for years of snoozing and smoozing.

 

I would be more critical and open to Bernies criticism as he is the populist vote.

 

And unlike a lot of career politicians, he's treating a country like a business and getting value for money.

Edited 9 hours ago by GarethM

[Steven P]

If the country was a business, then a business man might do well to lead it though with Trump, all his inherited wealth, if he'd sat and done nothing with it, he'd be richer - considering his clouded admissions of his wealth, that is taking best estimates). Might be better business men out there able to turn a better profit rather than bankrupting businesses and selling them on so someone else picks up the bill like Trump has done.

 

However government isn't a business, there is no profit and loss account. Government is there to make a loss, spend all they get in, though I think taking on debt is a bad thing. Many of Trumps proposals and his actions are based on spending more than the current income.... bankrupt the 'business' and move on so someone else fixes the problem. This can be seen with things such as his tariffs - touted as a perfect way to make 'other countries' (ie. the American consumer) pay, his efficiency savings (fire the employees like the Tories 'Austerity' years that worked so well, and extending his previous tax rises (he hasn't increased taxes... this term... just extended previously applied increases... sticking to his promises), and still the borrowing is set to increase by a Trillion dollars (?) think it was that.

 

Government is there to spend money, that spending is there to make society work - whether it is large infrastructure like roads, nuclear power, or supporting those in need such as pensions, social security or healthcare. There is no profit and loss account, there is no profit. An alien world to a business man.

 

Career politicians are more likely to have seen and experienced the 'loss' side of government, whether directly  as a part of their life (as Saunders was), or on fact finding days out. A businessman is often secluded from the poorest in society as they sit on their gold plated toilets.

 

 

What I am saying there Gareth, is that if government was a business, profit and loss, then employ a successful business leader with proven track record of increasing wealth. However it isn't and put in place politicians who know the loss side of things, where the money is best spent (as Saunders is). What options for the limited dollars bring the best returns.

 

Trump isn't the man for either case in my opinion. Born into extreme wealth has no idea of poverty and hardship. His business deals haven't actually increased his wealth either, just covered his failed business deals.

[GarethM]

4 minutes ago, Steven P said:

If the country was a business, then a business man might do well to lead it though with Trump, all his inherited wealth, if he'd sat and done nothing with it, he'd be richer - considering his clouded admissions of his wealth, that is taking best estimates). Might be better business men out there able to turn a better profit rather than bankrupting businesses and selling them on so someone else picks up the bill like Trump has done.

 

However government isn't a business, there is no profit and loss account. Government is there to make a loss, spend all they get in, though I think taking on debt is a bad thing. Many of Trumps proposals and his actions are based on spending more than the current income.... bankrupt the 'business' and move on so someone else fixes the problem. This can be seen with things such as his tariffs - touted as a perfect way to make 'other countries' (ie. the American consumer) pay, his efficiency savings (fire the employees like the Tories 'Austerity' years that worked so well, and extending his previous tax rises (he hasn't increased taxes... this term... just extended previously applied increases... sticking to his promises), and still the borrowing is set to increase by a Trillion dollars (?) think it was that.

 

Government is there to spend money, that spending is there to make society work - whether it is large infrastructure like roads, nuclear power, or supporting those in need such as pensions, social security or healthcare. There is no profit and loss account, there is no profit. An alien world to a business man.

 

Career politicians are more likely to have seen and experienced the 'loss' side of government, whether directly  as a part of their life (as Saunders was), or on fact finding days out. A businessman is often secluded from the poorest in society as they sit on their gold plated toilets.

 

 

What I am saying there Gareth, is that if government was a business, profit and loss, then employ a successful business leader with proven track record of increasing wealth. However it isn't and put in place politicians who know the loss side of things, where the money is best spent (as Saunders is). What options for the limited dollars bring the best returns.

 

Trump isn't the man for either case in my opinion. Born into extreme wealth has no idea of poverty and hardship. His business deals haven't actually increased his wealth either, just covered his failed business deals.

Sadly that's where you are very wrong.

 

A country is like a business, not necessarily a massive profit making one, like the royal mail.

 

Things get done and spending is comfortably within it's means without borrowing, but able to keep enough back for doing things abroad if necessary.

 

That's actually one of the reasons the USA was founded, no taxation without representation.

 

You can argue bankruptcy law, but the USA system encourages it, our system stigmatises it.

[GarethM]

Just sit back and let them shrink the bloated state and the national debt in say a year.

 

The quicker it's done the better off Americans will become and no doubt a lot of Bernie's things will eventually come into fruition.

 

Unless you want Donald to do a Liz Truss?.

[Steven P]

To be honest, sitting back and watching is the most all of us can do really, not in a position of influence however we can have opinions. It is rare that the politicians ask for direct feedback and opinions outside of the polling station, feel strong in a subject and if that opportunity occurs you should grab it - a rare opportunity.

 

So yes watching and with opinions. I won' be holding my breath that any of the current governments (US, UK, European) actually reduce the associated national debts significantly in the next year, and likewise reducing the size of the state whiles maintaining its productivity.

 

Third point... I cannot either see that any of Trumps politics will aligns with Saunders wish list (the wish list of the working man), though I can see that a lot of Trumps politics will enable growth in his own personal bank balance from now till his death.

[Johnsond]

8 hours ago, Steven P said:

If the country was a business, then a business man might do well to lead it though with Trump, all his inherited wealth, if he'd sat and done nothing with it, he'd be richer - considering his clouded admissions of his wealth, that is taking best estimates). Might be better business men out there able to turn a better profit rather than bankrupting businesses and selling them on so someone else picks up the bill like Trump has done.

 

However government isn't a business, there is no profit and loss account. Government is there to make a loss, spend all they get in, though I think taking on debt is a bad thing. Many of Trumps proposals and his actions are based on spending more than the current income.... bankrupt the 'business' and move on so someone else fixes the problem. This can be seen with things such as his tariffs - touted as a perfect way to make 'other countries' (ie. the American consumer) pay, his efficiency savings (fire the employees like the Tories 'Austerity' years that worked so well, and extending his previous tax rises (he hasn't increased taxes... this term... just extended previously applied increases... sticking to his promises), and still the borrowing is set to increase by a Trillion dollars (?) think it was that.

 

Government is there to spend money, that spending is there to make society work - whether it is large infrastructure like roads, nuclear power, or supporting those in need such as pensions, social security or healthcare. There is no profit and loss account, there is no profit. An alien world to a business man.

 

Career politicians are more likely to have seen and experienced the 'loss' side of government, whether directly  as a part of their life (as Saunders was), or on fact finding days out. A businessman is often secluded from the poorest in society as they sit on their gold plated toilets.

 

 

What I am saying there Gareth, is that if government was a business, profit and loss, then employ a successful business leader with proven track record of increasing wealth. However it isn't and put in place politicians who know the loss side of things, where the money is best spent (as Saunders is). What options for the limited dollars bring the best returns.

 

Trump isn't the man for either case in my opinion. Born into extreme wealth has no idea of poverty and hardship. His business deals haven't actually increased his wealth either, just covered his failed business deals.

And how many people do you employ SP ? 
You self employed or employed?. 
I know these are difficult questions that you have in the best political style swerved a few times but 🤷‍♂️honesty is often the best policy. 
You do know old millionaire Bernie is in the top 1% as they call it in the US.

[peds]