What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[grumbler]

I do. Oh wait you mean people in DC.

I think he meant the general population, and I agree.

That's why I think having a noticeable deficit hawk constituency used to be a great advantage for the US, because it's such a tempting short-term, banana republic trap to fall into.

Yes, well known banana republics such as Norway, the UK, France and Germany.

They all manage to provide extensive public services without racking up debt like they're Greece.

  Way to completely and obnoxiously miss his point, Tim.

[Admiral Yi]

Yes, well known banana republics such as Norway, the UK, France and Germany.

They all manage to provide extensive public services without racking up debt like they're Greece.

I'm not going to continue this discussion until you have adequately demonstrated that you understand the difference between a deficit and a large public sector.

[jimmy olsen]

Yes, well known banana republics such as Norway, the UK, France and Germany.

They all manage to provide extensive public services without racking up debt like they're Greece.

I'm not going to continue this discussion until you have adequately demonstrated that you understand the difference between a deficit and a large public sector.

Of course I understand the difference.

[Habbaku]

Then what does your pose have to do with Yi's?

[jimmy olsen]

Then what does your pose have to do with Yi's?

They all have managable deficts despite spending lots of money, and it's not because of any "decifit hawk" contingency. It's their willingness to levy taxes on the wealthy, something that "deficit hawks" in America are unwilling to do. The only way they want to bring the deficit down is to cut services and benifits.

[Admiral Yi]

So a comprehension issue, not a misunderstanding of concepts.

[Valmy]

Pretty sure deficit hawks in the US are fine with raising taxes if it is used to balance the budget.

[Habbaku]

Pretty sure deficit hawks in the US are fine with raising taxes if it is used to balance the budget.

No kidding. I consider myself a deficit hawk and recognize the need for taxes to go up to pay for services that have been enacted. Raising taxes is vastly better than borrowing so heavily as we've been doing.

[Grey Fox]

I'm with Tim, deficit hawks are just about slashing spending.

Habbaku, you are something different, maybe, a deficit eagle.

[mongers]

I'm with Tim, deficit hawks are just about slashing spending.

Habbaku, you are something different, maybe, a deficit eagle.

That would make Trump a deceitful pigeon.

[The Minsky Moment]

The deficit hawk constituency is weak in the US because there aren't any presently apparent economic consequences to the deficits.  If interest rates went significantly higher or if the dollar got hit, that would focus more attention.  Bubba didn't get the deficit down out of some absolute deficit hawk conviction, he did it to get interest rates down.

The GHWB no new taxes debacle is also a historical factor that completely screwed up the GOP on this issue. Bush did the "right" thing under the old postwar consensus but that era was over and he got pummeled by the tabloids and then lost ehe election.  The bulk of the GOP has permanently locked themselves into a no tax increase position since then and since the most significant portions of the federal budget bar defense are mostly locked in place, and since the GOP won't touch the defense budget - that effectively makes them the pro-deficit party in reality, if not in rhetoric.

[crazy canuck]

The Canadian experience is similar - as far as our parties becoming deficit reduction crusaders in the 90s but we diverge when it comes to how the budgets were balanced and what followed.   Rather than slaying the deficit mainly through spending reduction we did it mainly through tax increases.  Once the budget was balanced we then entered a long period of balanced budgets, relative spending decreases or freezes and tax reduction.  That came to an end with the market meltdown in 2008 but bringing the books back into balance continued to be a primary plank in all our political party's platforms until the last federal election.  In that election the NDP (our most left leaning party) and the governing Conservatives continued to promise balanced budgets.  The Liberals effectively stole the vote from the NDP and kept enough of the middle by promising they would intentionally run deficits for a brief period of time to allow the economy to recover.  That was the turning point in the election and you now get to enjoy Trudeau dressing up in local costumes as he goes on his world tours.

But the problem for the Liberals is the Canadian economy recovered more quickly than was anticipated and the Liberals are still committed to deficit spending.  I suspect that the deficit issue is going to be the Liberal's largest obstacle to re-election (even greater than Trudeau's need to dress up )

[Jacob]

But the problem for the Liberals is the Canadian economy recovered more quickly than was anticipated...

That made me laugh.

[crazy canuck]

But the problem for the Liberals is the Canadian economy recovered more quickly than was anticipated...

That made me laugh.

Indeed.  The timing of the election was perfect for the Liberals as a short term deficit spending platform made sense at the time.  But before the Liberals rolled out their spending programs the economy had recovered.  Harper must be cursing his bad luck.  If the election was a year later he probably would have won another majority.

The problem for the Liberals is that they didn't change course on their spending plans despite the fact that the economy no longer needed any stimulus spending.  And now they are encumbered with a lot of spending promises that they are having difficulty backing away from.

[mongers]

The Canadian experience is similar - as far as our parties becoming deficit reduction crusaders in the 90s but we diverge when it comes to how the budgets were balanced and what followed.   Rather than slaying the deficit mainly through spending reduction we did it mainly through tax increases.  Once the budget was balanced we then entered a long period of balanced budgets, relative spending decreases or freezes and tax reduction.  That came to an end with the market meltdown in 2008 but bringing the books back into balance continued to be a primary plank in all our political party's platforms until the last federal election.  In that election the NDP (our most left leaning party) and the governing Conservatives continued to promise balanced budgets.  The Liberals effectively stole the vote from the NDP and kept enough of the middle by promising they would intentionally run deficits for a brief period of time to allow the economy to recover.  That was the turning point in the election and you now get to enjoy Trudeau dressing up in local costumes as he goes on his world tours.

But the problem for the Liberals is the Canadian economy recovered more quickly than was anticipated and the Liberals are still committed to deficit spending.  I suspect that the deficit issue is going to be the Liberal's largest obstacle to re-election (even greater than Trudeau's need to dress up )

Interesting, so in large part, he and his party are Tony Blair's new Labour?