Welcome President Romney 2020

[Read the Footnotes]

It looks like Trump has decided that a new front runner has emerged and he has directed his attention to attacking Romney.

 

Link to article and the Swiftboating add:

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/466553-trump-knocks-romney-as-democrat-secret-asset-in-new-video

 

Ironic that Trump was a Democrat and Romney was not, but facts don't matter.

[Read the Footnotes]

I have previously said at investor conferences/presentations (and on this board) that I think one likely scenario is that two strong frontrunners will emerge in Michael Bloomberg and Mitt Romney for 2020.

 

That sounded a bit nutty long ago when neither were declared, but it looks like we are one step closer to that prospect as Bloomberg prepares to file for a presidential primary. A study of recent presidential elections could lead one to believe that there is not only no first mover advantage, but there is likely a first mover disadvantage, if anything. Bloomberg seems smart enough to realize that.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/07/bloomberg-preparing-to-file-for-alabama-presidential-primary-000322

[Gregmal]

I love the idea of Bloomberg running. Totally de risks a lot of the apocalypse scenario.

[cubsfan]

I love the idea of Bloomberg running. Totally de risks a lot of the apocalypse scenario.

 

Agree - competing against all the nut bags should be easy - and should make life a lot tougher for Trump.

 

Maybe the Democratic Party won't melt down.

[Spekulatius]

I have previously said at investor conferences/presentations (and on this board) that I think one likely scenario is that two strong frontrunners will emerge in Michael Bloomberg and Mitt Romney for 2020.

 

That sounded a bit nutty long ago when neither were declared, but it looks like we are one step closer to that prospect as Bloomberg prepares to file for a presidential primary. A study of recent presidential elections could lead one to believe that there is not only no first mover advantage, but there is likely a first mover disadvantage, if anything. Bloomberg seems smart enough to realize that.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/07/bloomberg-preparing-to-file-for-alabama-presidential-primary-000322

 

That was a pretty prescient call. I also agree that Bloomberg is a great candidate and by far the most qualified. I do wonder if the late start makes it more difficult to elbow into the top contender field.

[LC]

Bloomberg was a pretty good mayor, I think we as a country could do a lot worse with him as Pres. In fact, we currently are!

[SouthernYankee]

Bloomberg WAS a pretty good mayor. The important distinction that must be made is this: if Rudy didn't come before him and clean up the city first, Bloomberg would not have become Mayor. By the time he left, his "I know better than the rest of you" attitude was wearing thin. Of course, compared to DeBlasio, Bloomie was top-rate.

 

That said, do I want to replace Trump with him? Not particularly.

 

The people of this country need to see the corruption of Washington DC bureaucrats/entrenched politicians first hand, and the only way to do that is to keep Trump where he is. Hopefully Congress can try to do their job and get a better understanding about budgeting, as the government spends way too much money, and Trump hasn't done anything about that.

[Gregmal]

Bloomberg was a pretty good mayor, I think we as a country could do a lot worse with him as Pres. In fact, we currently are!

 

Too bad you have to wait another couple elections before that dirty little hood hamster AOC can be the recipient of your vote!

[Castanza]

Bloomberg, another rich bureaucrat looking to leave his mark on society before he passes away. More tactful and qualified than Trump? Without a doubt! Will either of them bring meaningful change? Doubtful. That being said, I would take Bloomberg over Trump (Not a Romney fan).

 

Jacob Hornberger (LP) has some stances that would probably surprise a lot of you on both sides of the aisle.

 

https://jacobforliberty.com/positions/all/

 

https://www.fff.org/blog/

 

 

[stahleyp]

I might hold my nose and vote for Trump if Bloomberg gets the nomination.

 

 

I actually like the apocalyptic scenarios. The system is corrupt and needs a good flush. Look at all of the folks Epstein hung out with!

[LC]

I actually like the apocalyptic scenarios. The system is corrupt and needs a good flush. Look at all of the folks Epstein hung out with!

Voting for a demagogue and calling it rebellion is nonsense.

 

Take a look at HK if you want to see what trying to "flush the system" actually looks like.

[stahleyp]

I actually like the apocalyptic scenarios. The system is corrupt and needs a good flush. Look at all of the folks Epstein hung out with!

Voting for a demagogue and calling it rebellion is nonsense.

 

Take a look at HK if you want to see what trying to "flush the system" actually looks like.

 

Life isn't always fun and games. Though that's mostly what the US has known for the last 40 years or so (economically).

 

I'm pretty confident that our flushing of the system wouldn't look like Hong Kong.

 

 

[Gregmal]

I actually like the apocalyptic scenarios. The system is corrupt and needs a good flush. Look at all of the folks Epstein hung out with!

Voting for a demagogue and calling it rebellion is nonsense.

 

Take a look at HK if you want to see what trying to "flush the system" actually looks like.

 

If that is what you really think a vote for Trump is, you're beyond gone. The MSM has officially captured your brain.

[Castanza]

I might hold my nose and vote for Trump if Bloomberg gets the nomination.

 

 

I actually like the apocalyptic scenarios. The system is corrupt and needs a good flush. Look at all of the folks Epstein hung out with!

 

 

I agree with you to some extent on the "reset." But I don't think you can/should manufacture that. It needs to happen organically and (if history is any indicator) it will. The quote below sums it up nicely.

 

“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”

 

Also I'm not sure why people are calling Bloomberg a moderate. He is far from being anything moderate and is quite far left if you look at his stances. I think he'll have a harder time getting elected than people seem to think. I am curious through as to why you would vote for Warren over Trump but not Bloomberg?

 

edit: And I'm not saying a "reset" is close. 

[stahleyp]

People wouldn't actually vote for Trump because they lost their jobs to Mexico or China (thanks to Clinton) or government bailing out Wall St (thanks Bush and Obama!). They certainly wouldn't vote for him due to the opioid epidemic (thanks to Clinton, Bush and Obama). It's not because the system is broken and they want change.

 

It's because they're prejudiced, racists, whateverophobes, bigots, blah blah blah. Just all around deplorable!

[stahleyp]

I might hold my nose and vote for Trump if Bloomberg gets the nomination.

 

 

I actually like the apocalyptic scenarios. The system is corrupt and needs a good flush. Look at all of the folks Epstein hung out with!

 

 

I agree with you to some extent on the "reset." But I don't think you can/should manufacture that. It needs to happen organically and (if history is any indicator) it will. The quote below sums it up nicely.

 

“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”

 

Also I'm not sure why people are calling Bloomberg a moderate. He is far from being anything moderate and is quite far left if you look at his stances. I think he'll have a harder time getting elected than people seem to think. I am curious through as to why you would vote for Warren over Trump but not Bloomberg?

 

I could be wrong about Warren but she has a history of fighting for the middle class. I think her idea for the CBPF was a very good one. I also think that levying a wealth tax (or some type of distribution) will lower the power of the wealthy and return it (somewhat) to the middle class. Plus, if Cohen is against her, she must be doing something right.

 

With that said, I disagree with a lot of her policies (free college, loan forgiveness). I would much rather have higher taxes to pay off the debt - even if that meant weaker economic growth. I think it creates discipline and allows for more efficiency.

 

[no_free_lunch]

Stahley, I couldn't disagree more on Warren and the wealth tax.  6%, like come on.  On top of income tax.  That is an actual assault on people's assets.  There is language in the consitution which forbids this.

 

I think it sounds fine now because maybe it doesn't affect you, and even if i was american it wouldn't affect me.  However, just like every other government program this is just the beginning.  It starts at $50m, but then there will be a budget crisis and it will be $10m.  Then there will be some other issue and it will be $2m.  Sooner or later I think they will get to anyone who was foolish enough to save.

[stahleyp]

Stahley, I couldn't disagree more on Warren and the wealth tax.  6%, like come on.  On top of income tax.  That is an actual assault on people's assets.  There is language in the consitution which forbids this.

 

I think it sounds fine now because maybe it doesn't affect you, and even if i was american it wouldn't affect me.  However, just like every other government program this is just the beginning.  It starts at $50m, but then there will be a budget crisis and it will be $10m.  Then there will be some other issue and it will be $2m.  Sooner or later I think they will get to anyone who was foolish enough to save.

 

I think by forcing the government to run a balanced budget a lot of the issues would be ironed out before there would be a budget crisis. Like, if the government wasn't running a huge deficit now, we would have probably had a recession sometime over the past 10 years. People act like recessions are terrible thing but I think they have benefits.

 

 

[Castanza]

Stahley, I couldn't disagree more on Warren and the wealth tax.  6%, like come on.  On top of income tax.  That is an actual assault on people's assets.  There is language in the consitution which forbids this.

 

I think it sounds fine now because maybe it doesn't affect you, and even if i was american it wouldn't affect me.  However, just like every other government program this is just the beginning.  It starts at $50m, but then there will be a budget crisis and it will be $10m.  Then there will be some other issue and it will be $2m.  Sooner or later I think they will get to anyone who was foolish enough to save.

 

I agree with this. The idea that “we can do it right this time.” Always fails. Socialism is a system that utilizes unrealistic and imaginary human emotions to produce legislation which ultimately fails directly because of actual human emotions. Systems which limit power because of their understanding of human desires, motives, and emotions work the best. That’s why freedom > central planning. In other words a system that provides the least amount of leverage by a governing body is the best.

 

This country doesn’t need to be “fundamentally changed” as Obama said upon election. It needs to get back to its fundamentals.

[stahleyp]

Stahley, I couldn't disagree more on Warren and the wealth tax.  6%, like come on.  On top of income tax.  That is an actual assault on people's assets.  There is language in the consitution which forbids this.

 

I think it sounds fine now because maybe it doesn't affect you, and even if i was american it wouldn't affect me.  However, just like every other government program this is just the beginning.  It starts at $50m, but then there will be a budget crisis and it will be $10m.  Then there will be some other issue and it will be $2m.  Sooner or later I think they will get to anyone who was foolish enough to save.

 

It needs to get back to its fundamentals.

 

Agree with this 100%. That's why a good flush is called for. ;)

 

Let me be clear here guys. I'm not saying I'm going to vote for Warren, Trump or anyone else right now. I probably won't make up my mind until the debates happen.

[LC]

I actually like the apocalyptic scenarios. The system is corrupt and needs a good flush. Look at all of the folks Epstein hung out with!

Voting for a demagogue and calling it rebellion is nonsense.

 

Take a look at HK if you want to see what trying to "flush the system" actually looks like.

 

Life isn't always fun and games. Though that's mostly what the US has known for the last 40 years or so (economically).

 

I'm pretty confident that our flushing of the system wouldn't look like Hong Kong.

 

Oh? Trump has been in office for 3 years, 2 of which he had republican control of Congress and Supreme Court. Where has the flush been?

 

Tell me what “flushing the system” would look like in America.

[stahleyp]

I actually like the apocalyptic scenarios. The system is corrupt and needs a good flush. Look at all of the folks Epstein hung out with!

Voting for a demagogue and calling it rebellion is nonsense.

 

Take a look at HK if you want to see what trying to "flush the system" actually looks like.

 

Life isn't always fun and games. Though that's mostly what the US has known for the last 40 years or so (economically).

 

I'm pretty confident that our flushing of the system wouldn't look like Hong Kong.

 

Oh? Trump has been in office for 3 years, 2 of which he had republican control of Congress and Supreme Court. Where has the flush been?

 

Tell me what “flushing the system” would look like in America.

 

This is wishful thinking on my part but I would like to see something like a balanced budget, judging people by the content of their character - not identity, a healthy middle class, having colleges not increase total cost by more than the rate of inflation (or have them on the hook for lousy students), then end of monetary policy - except in very extreme circumstances, giving more power to the IRS to audit folks, having large college endowments to pay taxes, increasing estate taxes, normalizing interest rates, reducing the power of powerful people (like Epstein and his friends), etc.

 

I think Trump has flushed it somewhat. I know I'm way less trusting of the media than I used to be.

 

[no_free_lunch]

Stahley, I couldn't disagree more on Warren and the wealth tax.  6%, like come on.  On top of income tax.  That is an actual assault on people's assets.  There is language in the consitution which forbids this.

 

I think it sounds fine now because maybe it doesn't affect you, and even if i was american it wouldn't affect me.  However, just like every other government program this is just the beginning.  It starts at $50m, but then there will be a budget crisis and it will be $10m.  Then there will be some other issue and it will be $2m.  Sooner or later I think they will get to anyone who was foolish enough to save.

 

I think by forcing the government to run a balanced budget a lot of the issues would be ironed out before there would be a budget crisis. Like, if the government wasn't running a huge deficit now, we would have probably had a recession sometime over the past 10 years. People act like recessions are terrible thing but I think they have benefits.

 

I think the best way to get a balanced budget is not to expand spending.

 

I'm just going to respond below to some of the various posts I have seen, not necessarily all based on your comments. 

 

It is true that the republicans have done little to cut spending.  They cut in some areas but add in others.  However, they are in a box.  If they cut too much they will never get re-elected.  They barely got elected to begin with.  We are at a point where the best you can realistically hope for is a government that doesn't add a bunch of spending.

 

Let's not forget that all this spending was started by the democrats back in the 30's.  Once these programs start you can never ever get rid of them.  That was by design, if you look online you can find some quotes from Roosevelt about it.

 

I think it's foolish to compare Warren to Obama or Clinton's track record.  This is something completely different.  There is just no debate, you are going to massively increase the size and spend of your government. She is quite open about that.  She is going to add a bunch of taxes on the wealth (and believe me, the middle class before it's all done) to pay for it.  This is her stated agenda.  To try to compare that to the Rs with the logic that they aren't government either is a strange comparison.

[Cigarbutt]

^It looks like the 'shift' happened somewhere in the 70's when we all became Keynesians, while forgetting half the story.

And its mind-boggling effect on productivity.

https://www.bls.gov/lpc/prodybar.htm

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/06/us-industrial-productivity-labor-costs-q3-2019.html

It was fun while it lasted.

[LC]

Oh? Trump has been in office for 3 years, 2 of which he had republican control of Congress and Supreme Court. Where has the flush been?

 

Tell me what “flushing the system” would look like in America.

 

This is wishful thinking on my part but I would like to see something like a balanced budget, judging people by the content of their character - not identity, a healthy middle class, having colleges not increase total cost by more than the rate of inflation (or have them on the hook for lousy students), then end of monetary policy - except in very extreme circumstances, giving more power to the IRS to audit folks, having large college endowments to pay taxes, increasing estate taxes, normalizing interest rates, reducing the power of powerful people (like Epstein and his friends), etc.

 

I think Trump has flushed it somewhat. I know I'm way less trusting of the media than I used to be.

 

I see.

 

Balanced budget: Trump has the largest deficit outside of a recession. He just added a cool trillion due to fiscal irresponsibility (lower taxes, higher spending)

 

Judging people by the content of their character: Is this something the President is responsible for?

Not like he does anyways...otherwise I guess his kid and kid's husband are the most qualified senior white house advisors. His administration has the record of the most staff turnover (34% of his initial staff!) and an increasing amount of Trump allies find themselves in handcuffs.

 

Healthy middle class: Just about every datapoint shows the middle and lower class share of the past 10 years bull market has paled in comparison to the upper class.

 

Colleges not increase total cost by more than the rate of inflation - hasn't happened (https://www.jasonscottmontoya.com/images/2019/06/cost-tuition-over-time.png)

 

End of monetary policy - except in very extreme circumstances - hasn't happened (https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/openmarket.htm)

 

More power to the IRS to audit folks - hasn't happened (https://www.atr.org/trump-budget-cuts-irs-funding-239-million)

 

Large college endowments to pay taxes- 2017 tax code levies 1.4% tax on endowment investment income. About 50 institutions quality. A whole 1.4%, or an estimated $200MM assuming an 6-8% gain on eligible endowments. (https://econofact.org/the-university-endowment-tax-who-will-pay-it-and-why-was-it-implemented)

 

Increasing estate tax- hasn't happened. Trump actually decreased the effective rate in 2017. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleaebeling/2017/12/21/final-tax-bill-includes-huge-estate-tax-win-for-the-rich-the-22-4-million-exemption/)

 

Normalizing interest rates - Hasn't happened. Rates are incredibly low. (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DGS30)

 

Reducing the power of powerful people - hasn't happened (here's the most recent example: https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article102356882.html)

 

I mean, AT MOST you can get progress on the Endowment tax which amounts to a paltry $200MM per year. This is a rounding error compared this year's budget increase.

 

 

 

So you have zero progress on the metrics you list but, somehow, you conclude "I think Trump has flushed it somewhat"

How do you explain this?