Trump vowed to eliminate debt in 8 years. He’s on track to leave it 50 percent higher

originally posted by: wheresthebody
a reply to: Southern Guardian

It's complete madness, but so many yanks still love the guy?!

From outside of america, it looks like the country has gone full tilt idiocracy.

That would be Congress, and the SJW left.

originally posted by: wheresthebody
a reply to: Scepticaldem

This guy was given some cash but he didnt blow it on blow and he is a self made billionaire.

given some cash - - - self made

pure double think

Again, its like any other business loan. You start with some capital, and you try to turn it into more through a business venture. You think a bank gives people a few billion?

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
Trump said he wouldn’t cut Medicaid, Social Security, and Medicare. His 2020 budget cuts all 3.

Good. They've operated in the red for how long? We need to fix it, not just throw more money at it. 100 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities my friend, and it isn't just pensions.

2019 figures for debt as a percentage of GDP are only about 3% higher than they were in 2017. Not a Trump issue at all unless you believe he has been encouraging the Fed to hold back on Quantitative tightening. Japan is still running smoothly with a national debt of 250% of their GDP but its on a smaller scale with most of the debt being held by the Japanese government itself.

Of the world's major economic powers, the United States has the highest national debt at 108.02% of its GDP. China, the world's second-largest economy and home to the world's largest population (1,415,045,928), has a national debt ratio of just 51.21% of its GDP.

If the claim was 50% higher than China, then yes probably.

a reply to: UKTruth

So instead of just agreeing this isn't a good thing and perhaps talking about the problem, you bring up past events that have nothing to do with this and turn it into an "us vs them" situation, while saying "well, so-and-so did it worse this many years ago!!!". If you let undesirable results set your standards, you will never go anywhere. The article is not about who got debt so many years ago. It is about the current state of the country and its not on the right track, even by the standard Trump set himself.

originally posted by: Cassi3l

You must be a billionaire to point this out. Or writing from moma's basement?

Trump vowed to exacerbate cognitive dissonance in 8 years. He’s on track to leave it 500 percent higher......

Seeing the levels Obama took it with things like getting "liberals" to worship multinational corporations, "socialists" to scream to high heavens in support of the most Textbook Fascist legislation in US history (Obamacare), not to mention getting the supposed "antiwar left" to goosestep as international warmongers, a brilliant achievement!!

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Is it really like any other business loan though?

So you are in favor of him shutting down the government to get congress to control their spending, right? Because that's his only play. IIRC every budget he has made had big cuts, which were then promptly dismissed by our congress critters.

What we need is 20 years of zero deficits. Then the debt will be manageable. Even with interest. But that would require cuts as interest payments increase over the next few years.

Now, I know you don't actually care about the budget or the debt, but are just looking for an excuse to bash trump. But the hilarious part is that now dems have to own a part of the debt too because they have the house, who specifically has the power of the purse.

a reply to: AmericasDoomed

Congress is the branch tasked with handling the nations money.

originally posted by: AmericasDoomed
a reply to: UKTruth

So instead of just agreeing this isn't a good thing and perhaps talking about the problem, you bring up past events that have nothing to do with this and turn it into an "us vs them" situation, while saying "well, so-and-so did it worse this many years ago!!!". If you let undesirable results set your standards, you will never go anywhere. The article is not about who got debt so many years ago. It is about the current state of the country and its not on the right track, even by the standard Trump set himself.

Seems to be on a pretty good trajectory, thanks to Trump's policies. The economy is doing well.
Most of the national debt is made up of notes, bills and bonds. It's really not a problem unless the US govt can't pay the loans back, so I treated the thread with the level of response it deserves.

The much bigger issue is unfunded liability - that's the ticking time bomb.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: Wardaddy454


you still think it was just a million.. that's cute. it was WAY more than that, possibly 300 million. lol

he lied to you about that, too, but you won't care.

And you are a man, and you've been lying to us all.
Proof dear. Know what that is? Lets see it. Or are you still waiting for Mueller to provide it.

The lie that Donald Trump has only received 1 million from his father is exactly that, a lie.

Here is a good article on the matter... it both agrees and disagrees with parts of the NYT article on the matter.

Link

originally posted by: DoubleDNH

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: Wardaddy454


you still think it was just a million.. that's cute. it was WAY more than that, possibly 300 million. lol

he lied to you about that, too, but you won't care.

And you are a man, and you've been lying to us all.
Proof dear. Know what that is? Lets see it. Or are you still waiting for Mueller to provide it.

The lie that Donald Trump has only received 1 million from his father is exactly that, a lie.

Here is a good article on the matter... it both agrees and disagrees with parts of the NYT article on the matter.

Link

The $1m is what he was given as an investment when he started out on his own. The additional funds he recieved over time was part of his inheritance but was not part of what he used to build his own initial fortune. It is ture he was given money when the real estate market crashed.

All of the 'how much was he given' nonsense is simply a way for people who hate Trump to square the circle in their own crazy minds as a way to reconcile the 'idiot' tag they place on Trump with a man who made billions. It's just too much for them to admit he is a successful business man.

The only lies are the ones these people keep telling themselves.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

hat’s a pretty deceptive post UK. The national debt clocked at $6 trillion when bush left and $12.8 trillion when Obama left.

That's a lie.

2008



2016



Obama spent $10 trillion plus during his reign of fiscal irresponsibility.

No one spent as much as O.

www.usdebtclock.org...

I mean Amazon didn't pay a single cent in federal taxes on $11.2 billion worth of profits last year alone.

That's another lie.

Amazon DOES pay taxes.

For 2018, it reported owing $322 million in taxes to US state governments and another $563 million in the rest of the world.

Under a separate accounting category, Amazon reported "cash taxes paid" -- or the amount of funds actually paid in taxes -- of $1.2 billion last year and $957 million in 2017. But these numbers are not broken down geographically, so it is not possible to know which government received the cash.

The LIES are too damn high

originally posted by: strongfp
Trump was born into wealth, which was A HUGE factor in his overall success. If you deny that, you live in fantasy land.

It was a factor. No one knows how big of a factor, but it doesn't matter.

What matters is what he did with it.

Envy is one of the 7 deadly sins, you know...

originally posted by: fleabit
The OP was about Trump's promise to eradicate national debt, and how he is managing the complete opposite.

Are you under the mis-understanding that the President has any kind of real control over the deficit or the debt?

Sorry, but that is all on Congress.

Anyone who has studied this knows that the red herring in the room is, the only - I repeat - the only way that anything can ever be done about the debt is to cut welfare/entitlements - yes, that means the Socialists precious Social(ist) (In)Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc etc... which is why no one has ever done anything about it. There are too many people dependent on those freebies.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: UKTruth

That’s a pretty deceptive post UK. The national debt clocked at $6 trillion when bush left and $12.8 trillion when Obama left. It’s a substantial increase but when we look at the numbers it pales in comparison to Trumps forecasted increase of $10+ trillion. Context is key here but I trust you already know that UK. I also trust you’re aware the GOP has held control of Congress 9 out of the last 10 years. You know? Congress? The national purse?

I’m just wondering where you found these numbers because according to this “The national debt nearly doubled under Obama: It was $10.6 trillion when he took office and was nearly $20 trillion when he left. The rise has been blamed on factors from the Great Recession to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and rising costs of Social Security and Medicare. Many of those pressures still exist.”

www.npr.org...

So according to this statement right here, you are wrong...again

originally posted by: tanstaafl

Anyone who has studied this knows that the red herring in the room is, the only - I repeat - the only way that anything can ever be done about the debt is to cut welfare/entitlements - yes, that means the Socialists precious Social(ist) (In)Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc etc... which is why no one has ever done anything about it. There are too many people dependent on those freebies.

Given the absence of much discussion of the actual economics on this thread, I'm not surprised at your assertion.

Let's start with the idea of a deficit. A deficit is not in itself a bad thing, in the same way that debt is not a bad thing for a business. In fact, public debt is essential for our post industrial western economies. I'm not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing. It just is.

Obama took over while the dust was settling from the worst economic crisis ever. All the countries that have successfully got over the 2008 meshuggenah borrowed to grow. Countries that tried to cut their way out of it, like the UK, are still limping along.

"Anyone who has studied this" knows that governments right, left and centre have stimulated their economies by borrowing and spending. Let's leave taxation aside, whole different issue, although again not what it would seem. Economies that merely borrow without investing in real growth do little but inflate and then, at best, collapse.

There is another reason why cutting welfare is a bad idea. I got this from a seriously high level analyst while preparing my own Brexit-proofing - governments won't hurt the very rich but there is only so much they can hurt the poorest 25%. They not only work in the engine room of any economy but they require a balancing act: they need to be kept hungry enough to keep trying but no so hungry that it generates unease and unrest.

Healthcare is another issue, more moral than economic.

Trump inherited a fairly robust economy so there was no good reason to increase borrowing. His spending plans are political, not economic. He has increased borrowing without investing in growth. Instead, he has passed money to - and reduced regulation on - the same people who gave us the crisis of 2008. That includes the people running the insurance companies that run US healthcare.

In short, nobody has ever done anything about it because its a damn stupid idea on every level.

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese
Let's start with the idea of a deficit. A deficit is not in itself a bad thing, in the same way that debt is not a bad thing for a business.

Deficits (spending more than you earn/take in) and Debt (borrowed money that must be paid back, with interest) are always bad. How bad depends on the nature of the deficit/debt. Is it short term/temporary? Or long term/never ending? The answer to this question can be the difference between bankruptcy/disaster, and ... not.

In fact, public debt is essential for our post industrial western economies. I'm not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing. It just is.

It is essential for our debt/usury based monetary system, nothing to do with our economies, it is everything to do with our corrupt monetary system.

Obama took over while the dust was settling from the worst economic crisis ever. All the countries that have successfully got over the 2008 meshuggenah borrowed to grow. Countries that tried to cut their way out of it, like the UK, are still limping along.

You say this like government borrowing or cutting are the only two options... they are not.

How about a government that simply doesn't spend more than it takes in, or involve itself in things that it has no business involving itself in? You do know that in the USA, 90+% of the things government does are Un/non-Constiututional? Meaning, there is no Constitutionally delegated authority for it.

"Anyone who has studied this" knows that governments right, left and centre have stimulated their economies by borrowing and spending.

Because they have, doesn't mean it is the only way.

Let's leave taxation aside, whole different issue, although again not what it would seem.

Like our monetary system, our tax system is inherently evil. It is legalized theft, pure and simple. But you are wrong that it is an 'whole different issue' - the two are entirely dependent on one another.

Economies that merely borrow without investing in real growth do little but inflate and then, at best, collapse.

How about economies that are purely merit based, with the only governmental intervention being a legal framework to protect people and provide a framework for recourse from acts of theft and fraud?

Sadly, the true rulers of society - the money powers - have never allowed a truly free society to exist. The USA was the closest people have ever gotten, and it is still within reach.

There is another reason why cutting welfare is a bad idea.

Eh? I hadn't noticed that you had provided the first example of why you think this is a bad idea.

I got this from a seriously high level analyst while preparing my own Brexit-proofing - governments won't hurt the very rich but there is only so much they can hurt the poorest 25%. They not only work in the engine room of any economy but they require a balancing act: they need to be kept hungry enough to keep trying but no so hungry that it generates unease and unrest.

No idea what you are trying to say here.

Healthcare is another issue, more moral than economic.

And again, government has no business being in the business of healthcare - aside from prociding a protective framewrk against theft and fraud. They need to just butt the hell out.

Trump inherited a fairly robust economy so there was no good reason to increase borrowing.

Please. The only thing keeping the economy going during the Obortion years was the Fed keeping interest rates at basically zero for how many years?

His spending plans are political, not economic. He has increased borrowing without investing in growth. Instead, he has passed money to - and reduced regulation on - the same people who gave us the crisis of 2008. That includes the people running the insurance companies that run US healthcare.

We'll just have to wait and see. Trump has explicitly stated he wants a much larger people oriented tax cut (although we did pretty good with the business oriented one already passed).

He also is the only one I've seen talking about the real problem - health care costs. That is the real problem, and the cause is the totally broken Insurance Industry.

He has even mentioned Rand Paul's suggestion for Association Health Plans, Total Price Transparency (provided such that anyone and everyone can quickly and easily and providers costs for any procedure they offer), and allowing insurance to be bought across state lines... etc... all of which would go a very long way to eliminating 'health care' as a major political tool for buying votes.

In short, nobody has ever done anything about it because its a damn stupid idea on every level.

Well, nothing of what you wrote supported that conclusion even a teeny little bit, so... try again?