@chessmaster1989: Well when the presidential debates start, and they begin debating about the economy, you will see that they will never say a word like surplus or moral hazard. In fact, absolutely no one in the public sphere does, except for people on forums trying to look smart. I hope you watch anyway since you said Bush has a chance and don't understand the appeal of Trump, it will set you on the right path.

I didn't say it was difficult jargon, it's economic jargon that a regular person wouldn't understand. Even people from the fed don't say things like that publicly and are smart enough to convey their messages in common speech, so just keep it in the classroom and put the economics textbook glossary aside when writing in public places.

Cutting Welfare can create jobs through a lot of different venues. The millions the government would save could replace just about any tax or a portion of any tax and more jobs could be made and businesses would have an easier time flourishing. For example if each state cut back on welfare they would of course have a higher income, which would allow them to lower sales tax by some amount which would grow the economy. Or use the money to lower small business taxes, allowing more entrepreneurs to take the risk of starting a new business.

@mattbbpl:

First of all, you need to retake macro1 since you didn't seem to get it. If you remember, welfare is a transfer and that money will get spent no matter what, so it isn't a fiscal policy. You also shouldn't use that kind of jargon since most people don't understand it.

They can make money however they see fit, but the easiest way right now would be flushing less tax dollars down the toilet.

Can you please tell me what the person running a country with trillions of dollars of debts responsibilities are then? If it's losing money and creating more debt then they are doing a pretty good job.

@LJS9502_basic: The main part of running a country is making money. Poor people may be sad at the beginning since the first way to make money would be to cut welfare payments, but afterward it would be through job creation which should make all but the most lazy happy. Just wait for the debates then you'll understand

According to liberal news the obligations are to ensure re-election at any cost and to siphon as many tax dollars into your own pocket as possible, that's why lawyers who know legal loopholes always win. Actual important things like balancing the budget and growing the economy don't matter anymore.

Just wait until the debates and watch Trump make fools of all the phonies. Hopefully it will cause some enlightenment among the deluded liberals.

It would be pretty funny to see him debate someone as slow as Hillary, who couldn't even beat Obama. Even with a teleprompter she sounds ridiculous without one It would just be sad, especially against Trump.

If you listened to common sense instead of the Liberal news you'd realize it is a business, that's why putting corrupt lawyers in power instead of businessmen has been so disastrous.

Although the liberal news will tell you otherwise, the leader of a country with trillions of dollars of debt should know how to make money.

@mattbbpl: I disagree with it, knowing how to make money is a staple of a good president. But even if you put aside his incredible resume, you can just compare what he has to say to all the other candidate's writers and see that he is the only choice.

@mattbbpl:

If someone is investing for over forty years it is inevitable that they will pick some losers. The thing that matters is that they are making a profit overall, which Trump has done in excess.

@chessmaster1989: Probab

Probably because he has proven he knows how to run a business, and more importantly is funding his own campaign so he isn't a puppet. I can't believe people would look at a scum like Hillary Clinton and want her as president.