Michael Moore says Michelle Obama would "crush" Donald Trump

Then lets slash government spending by 2 trillion.

 

Not going to happen - keep in mind who it is we are talking about here ... "Gov't" ... that is like telling a bee not to make honey.

If we were to do such a thing discretionary spending - which makes up roughly 1/3rd would be the first to go. This would get us a little over half way. Military/Defense Spending would be cut - almost to nothing.

Cutting 1 Trillion in mandatory spending would be difficult - for example cutting SS payments say in half. This is a plan that the public contributes to - so some of it is actually their money - so this is in effect the Gov't stealing from the people in a very direct way. People would also start demanding that if SS is going the way of the dinosaur they should not have to pay a portion of their salary for this.

The most obvious would be to cut medicare. This would hammer many people but older people in particular ... and most people have a grandparent lurking around somewhere.

I remember you advocating for full on nuclear war with Russia so you will love this scenario. Old folks would be out on the street - as would be veterans and now "ex" military personnel. There are no jobs as the impact of suddenly cutting spending by more than half would shock the system big time. Stock markets would crash and there would be financial chaos.

Not just old people would hit the streets - many because they would be force there - but their supporters - relatives. These would join the now the people who no longer have jobs in the now defunct US military - and of course all the people who are pissed off about the shuttering of these various programs.

In short there would be mass chaos - rioting and so on. The Gov't would want to declare martial law but there would be no point as there are no troops to call because they all have been fired.

Obviously this can not happen in a democratic system as the electorate would throw out the Gov't enacting these cuts en mass Only in a Totalitarian dictatorship is such a thing possible.

 

Fake post. Only Congress can pass laws and it was Democrat budgets that increased spending 10% and then 20% on top of that that shot the deficit to $1,400B just two years after the last Republican $161B deficit.

 

And with all the deductions then the effective rate would be about the same a zero sum gain. Tax revenues SOARED after the Gingrich/Kasich tax rate cuts and even more after the Bush43 tax rate cuts and the highest earners paid HUGELY more dollars and a bigger share and with the form we had surpluses and with the latter we were almost there again so why would you want to increase tax rates and slow the economy and tax revenue growth?

 

Admired? pfft. Your post whiffs of misandry and racism too. Next time, please take it outside.

 

Take Micheal Moore with a grain of salt. Michelle Obama is basically another Hillary Clinton without the political experience. That might or might not be a plus. Michelle wouldn't have the baggage of Hillary, but she would be like Trump, an inexperienced individual in the arena of politics. Although Michelle personality would be a plus to her whereas in my opinion, Trump's WWE wrestler persona is a hindrance making him an easy man to dislike.

If Michelle vs. Trump became a reality, I'd expect a very close election. Much like 2016. I think a lot of independents would like to get rid of Trump because of his obnoxious personality and very unpresidential behavior. But I don't think they would quickly embrace another inexperienced candidate. Call it a tossup.

 

And this is the dilemma caused by being dependent on the government.

I never advocated for war with Russia. I said we should have nuked eachothet back in the 80s. It was a hyperbolic statement expressing frustration with the backwards running of that country today.

 

There is an economic principle I would describe as the "optimum" tax rate. It is the marginal tax rate at which the government can collect the maximum amount of revenue, without killing off the economic engine that feeds it. That rate is about 25% to 30%. If you tax corporations and "the rich" below 25%, the gov't might not collect as much tax as it's capable of collecting, and if you tax corporations and "the rich" over 30%, you will likely start diminishing the amount of tax you collect because it stifles the ability of corporations to expand and compete in the global markets.

It's a rather simple principle actually, but one the left seems incapable of understanding.

I think Reagan hit that sweet spot when he finally got tax rates down to 28% in 1986. However, his large increases in defense spending, which I would argue were needed at that time, offset the gains made with the lower tax rates, and is what largely caused the budget deficits of that era.

 

Fair enough on the nuke thing. I agree that this dilemma is in large part caused by being dependent on Gov't but, there are numerous other factors as well. Just wasteful spending in general - be it on welfare - the military and useless wars - or healthcare.

Take healthcare for example - This is an extortion racket. 3.5 Trillion in 2017. Massively bloated and inefficient Govt bureaucracies in other nations provide more - universal healthcare - for roughly half that cost. The argument that the healthcare in these other places is far worse is BS ... we are middle of the pack.

This has little to do with people being dependent on Gov't and a whole lot to do with the Gov't allowing the healthcare oligopolies and insurance oligopolies to fix prices and engage in anti competitive practices = Extortion.

 

Something about not being proud of America until his husband was crowned.

 

Cant make any sense of this Post .. Moore does not have a husband ... he does have an ex wife though.

 

We're talking about Big Mike, aren't we? The 'wife' of Bathhouse Barry?

 

the President has the final say and is the only one that can sign a bill into law, Bush was President

that said, what was it Dems passed that Bush signed into law that cost 1 trillion more a year... you and I both no there was no such bill - if there was it would be mentioned over and over

 

part of the problem is many republicans think the rich shoudl pay no taxes and the working class should pay all the taxes

 

it's sad that so many republicans still think trickle down economics works

 

Wires must have crossed somewhere - the OP is about Moore so I thought your initial comment was about Moore... my bad.

 

The problem is leftist who spout such bromides and platitudes instead of engaging in an intellectual honest discussion.

 

Did for Reagan, did for Gingrich/Kasich, did for Bush43. How did the trickle up work for the Democrats starting in 2007?

 

Ahh Bush was a former president when the Democrats passed their 2009 budget with it's 20% increase in spending producing it's $1,400B deficit. The Democrats cut him out as you have repeatedly been shown. President Obama signed it after support that spending and adding his own to it.

 

It's called the Larger Curve. With capgains history shows 15%, the Bush43 rate, to produce the most revenues, double that with the Clinton 29% rate. Reagan requested less spending each year than Congress authorized and had they passed his budgets and budget recessions the deficits would have fallen to under $100B his last three years. It remains a spending problem not a revenue problem.

 

Definitely a spending problem, which can be worsened by bad tax policy. As I recall, it was actually called the Laffer curve. Named after Art Laffer, who served in the Reagan administration, and who is still active today as an occasional pundit on tax policy.

 

"It's called the Larger Curve."

Android auto-correct..................

 

war spending and tax cuts for the rich.... those were what increased the debt

you can't name anything in any budget other then those that added 1 trillion a year to the debt, whatever Bush did needs to be undone

 

sadly I am just stating the facts... some republicans even want to kill social security... sad!

 

With the war spending and the huge increase in tax revenues mostly from the rich the Republicans had the deficit down to a measly $161B by 2007 what are you talking about?