Subscribe: iTunes | PocketCasts | Overcast | Stitcher | RSS
Trey and Ken host this episode of the Politics Guys. The duo begins by talking about the increasing U.S. deficit. Trey explains the what the deficit and the national debt are. Then Trey gives some historic context before asking Ken his opinion on the rising deficit under President Trump. Ken argues that Democrats, as Keynesians, would better manage the budget without Republicans. His basic argument is that Republicans never pay for needed spending. Trey pushes back and asks, if that is the case, why Democrats have never stopped deficit spending when they held office. Trey suggests that the problem lies with Democrats spending policy and Republicans tax policy. He sees the compromises of the Clinton era as the solution forward.
Next they turn to the ongoing impeachment investigation and, more specifically, the recent subpoenas of high ranking Trump officials. They pair also discuss Lindsey Graham’s weak measure to ensure the House’s impeachment inquiry. They also get into the polling data on impeachment. Ken predicts that the House will vote on articles of impeachment by December.
They then discuss Trump’s relatively underreported sixth veto. Trump was once again forced to veto the House and the Senate ending his emergency declaration for the southern border. The pair speculate on what this means for Trump’s policy. Trey probs more deeply into the political communication side of the question and asks how it is Trump in some areas is able to stay quiet. Is this an indication of a more powerful media strategy?
Finally Trey and Ken talk Tulsi Gabbard and Hilary Clinton. In addition to discussing the current spat between the two Democrats, they ask what might have motivated Clinton’s comments. Unlike many Trey and Ken agree Clinton is not preparing to enter the race. Ken hypothesizes that Clinton sees Gabbard as another Jill Stein.
Listener support helps make The Politics Guys possible. If you’re interested in supporting the show, go to patreon.com/politicsguys or politicsguys.com/support.
Good stuff today, BUT the commentators got the finances of Soc Sec pretty wrong. It was said that the program has never been solvent. Not true, at all. In fact, it has run very large surpluses for many decades. Only very recently has it hit the tipping point where revenues are about the same as spending–with the trend towards spending exceeding revenues. HOWEVER, those decades of surpluses were “borrowed” by the federal government from the Social Security Administration (SSA) to spend on other priorities (tax cuts, the military, highways, etc.). That borrowed money, however, MUST be paid back to the SSA by the feds in each year that expenses exceed revenue–so that is starting to happen. This has been painful for the feds–no more “free” SSA money, AND they now have to start making good on those IOUs. The HUGE amount of IOUs that must be paid back will keep Soc Sec solvent for a few more decades–and there WILL come a time when indeed Soc Sec is no longer “profitable.” That will force us to make even harder choices.
Francis Carleton
Professor of Political Science
College of Southern Nevada
Thanks for the comment. I’ll be sure to bring this up during our next show! – Mike
I am a real estate and title insurance attorney and have been for 25 years. I was discouraged to hear one of the commentators literally blame the recession on George W. for not properly regulating Wall Street. It’s obviously been a decade now, but I followed the recession pretty closely for a handful of years at that time, and it was my understanding that the relaxed regulation of Wall Street actually began in Clinton’s years at a time when Democrats wanted to increase home ownership to a larger percentage of lower income families, and, as the commentator stated, Clinton and Congress had a decent working relationship in those years, and Republicans worked with the Democrats to make the goal happen. The fact that pretty much no one suffered any significant repercussions for the morally corrupt lending during those years (which would have fallen during Obama’s administration) has led right back to the very similar lending practices as existed pre-recession. I see the recession as not a Republican – Democrat battle, it is a greed battle in that all of these wealthy presidents and the wealth of Capitol Hill is playing nicey-nice with Wall Street and have lost all touch with the average American. Clinton and his Dems are to blame for asking, Newt and his Reps are to blame for agreeing, W may be to blame but there were some decent terrorist threats to our country during his years, and Obama is to blame for not handing out stronger consequences. It’s interesting to me that the Republican commentators on the show don’t tend to call out and heavily criticize Democrats, but the Democrat commentators don’t have a problem being openly biased and blatantly accusatory while not recognizing the faults of their own party members. I will add that there are literally thousands of title employees and escrow closers in this country with no more than a high school diploma who knew we were headed for a recession years and years before it happened.
Some great points – thanks for commenting! (I think this might be something we should discuss on an upcoming listener mail show.)