Trump: I will eliminate U.S. debt in 8 years

a reply to: queenofswords

Yeah so NATURALLY these concepts are ubiquitous to GOVERNMENTS declaring bankruptcy.

Nothing short of your information being correct, the clear issues with Trump supporters are correlating logic itself.

Good job, you know 5% more than the average person about this detail. That's still # and doesnt mean ANYTHING in this debate.

When a single person declares bankruptcy only ONE person is at risk, reconsidering that alone makes any relevant points so #ing diluted. Care to comment on something of substance, or is your belief ANY understanding of bankruptcy is substance?

Here is the question; When you are sitting on 19 trillion dollars of debt with only 3 trillion in taxes come in, how long till you pay off the national debt?

The problem is this in a nut shell: The USA has been sitting on bills for years, that should have been paid off a long time ago, combine that with the borrowing of money from other countries and it makes for a bad combination.

If he was serious the first thing to do is clear the debt from the past, to pay it all off that way it is no longer on the books and then start buying back the debt held by other countries that have been lending money to the USA, like for Iraq and Afganistan. Those 2 alone should also be paid back and start getting the bonds back from other countries, thus reducing the US debt fully.

However, there is one other small problem and that is that the GOP, like Trump, keeps stating cut taxes, guess what that is where the money for the country comes from, and cutting taxes, means that the amount coming in will decline, and ultimately there needs to be a scraping of the old tax code and a new one put in place where it is more fair to all people.

And finally, the USA needs to stop borrowing money and start living within its own means, including stop raiding from one group to pay for another, like social security and medicare.

a reply to: CosmicSmack

This is how Sanders is going to fix it. Better get that Bern Cream out because your going to need it.

At these rates it would almost be cheaper to go on welfare then to get a job. Of course that is the goal of Socialism, to have everyone dependent on the state.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Republican front runner Donald Trump claims he can (and will) eliminate the U.S. National Debt in 8 years !!

His main objective seems to be trade deals and how those may be responsible.

He will re-negotiate in our favor.

Obviously there's more to it than just trade and manufacturing problems.

Trump is something like 7 or 8 points behind Ted Cruz in the upcoming Wisconsin Primary



Trump: I will eliminate U.S. debt in 8 years

Donald Trump insists the he will be able to wipe out the United States’ debt in eight years.

The Republican candidate said in a wide-ranging interview with the Washington Post that he’d be able to get rid of the more than $19 trillion debt “over a period of eight years.”

Eliminating that amount of debt in eight years is highly impossible, according to most economists, the Washington Post reported. It could require using $2 trillion a year from the annual $4 trillion budget to pay off holders of the debt.

Trump insisted in the interview that “renegotiating all of our deals” will help pay down the debt by sparking economic growth.

Trump at a town hall meeting in Wisconsin the other day....

He talks about .... Donald Trump "We Are Sitting On A Bubble That's Gonna Explode! We Have Debt! On Debt! ON DEBT!

? Is This Even Possible ?

The Donald is creeping up on Cruz there.

Put it this way, anything to start the debt coming down is good.

In terms of economics, no one is perceived to be better than Trump in the race.

Even if he comes in under his goal, it's still better than what the others would do.

I can't see this happening. Not in 8 years. Not without yearly budget surpluses. Not without serious tax restructuring and corporate subsidy elimination. And even with all that it would take far longer than 8 years. If we completely ended all defense spending ( the largest portion of our budget by far) it would only be about 20% of what we would need to make up each year to make this happen in 8 years. I like Trump, but this statement is bogus.

edit to add: If Trump can manage to kickstart our GDP, which has been woeful under Obama, and get the percentage of debt to GDP to a manageable number somewhere near 30%, plus end subsidies, eliminate tax haven loopholes, and cut defense spending to more manageable numbers, he quite possibly could eat into that debt.

a reply to: Konduit

Stock up on bern cream because socialism regulates it.

a reply to: imjack

Nasty series of posts for a 'newbie'. That is if you are one. Your politics are already clear.

No real precedent for a super-power declaring bankruptcy. Likely it would go, no more money for you. If you think you can claim the equity, go ahead and try....

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
www.businessinsider.com...

We actually "owe" the majority of the so called "national debt" to ourselves. A large chunk of THAT is owed directly to the Federal Government. These are the same people who brought you $750 toilet seats, so their numbers are almost certainly inflated.

Why would we want that number to be even larger than it really is? Because of what it actually represents, as opposed to what most people think it represents.

Whenever I hear, "we should run the country more like a business," I know I am dealing with someone who installs garage doors for a living and who thinks three minute pay-per-view "fights" at $75 a pop are a good investment.

You guys are funny.

Yeah, "run the country like a politician would".

What could go wrong? That even sounds dirty.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Oh, so then no understanding of something that has no precedent has clear correlation to his arguement?

Deny ignorance? Does this mean anything?

Feel free to call my "series" of posts nasty. Let's quote them why not. Or is there no correlation to these arguements either? You're a nasty stalker at best, seeing as I rarely talk about any of the political figures because I don't vote.

My last comment about Trump was in response to his drug pledge and was positive. Are you just literally making things up?

I'm one of those "Trump's not so bad, his followers are idiots though" so I really fail to see how I'm wrong so far. I don't even support the Left, I just lean left. If a conservative is elected, I'd be hoping it's Trump because of my anti-establishment views.

I foresee this:

Trump puts together a team of accountants and other smart people with no political connections, sits them down to review every darn bit of the obscenely huge budget.

They flag anything that it makes no sense for tax payers to be paying.
They flag anything that has a budget way too high to be reasonable for the services.

That alone should be enough to drastically reduce spending.

Then he goes to other countries that owe us money and starts making arrangements for them to pay us back.

Then he stops sending money to other countries, especially for stupid things.

The end result is a solid budget with reasonable spending, perhaps with even more available for the important things like defense and social security - and to pay down the deficit.

If we ran our household budgets the way the current administration runs the budget, we would all be living on the streets.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

You do realize that the debt is revolving, right? Bonds are always maturing, and new bonds are always being purchased. The maturation cycle of debts (bonds and securities) has a lifecycle.

This alone makes Trump's plan categorically nonsense, as this lifecycle is not "8 years."

The guy has said that if he shot someone in the middle of the street his followers would still support him...

It isn't that surprising that his supporters also truly do believe that Trump will erase the U.S. Debt in 8 years.

a reply to: BlueAjah

Whomever convinced you that a household budget is in any way similar to a government budget has you exactly where they want you.

The comparison is a gross oversimplification, and fundamentally disavows 99% of the source of this debt, which is -- at its core -- a manifestation of trust in the "dollars" we have in circulation.

I feel like I am taking crazy pills on this site lately.

It would be utterly impossible to pay back our debt in 8 years. Once again, he is just spewing nonsense to get the presidency. Every President talks about reducing debt. Every one of them increases it. Because it's HARD. Trump will renegotiate? With what? Eliminate in 8 years?! lol.. hilarious. He repeatedly makes claims he can't back up. And people swallow it, hook, line and sinker.

originally posted by: muse7
The guy has said that if he shot someone in the middle of the street his followers would still support him...

It isn't that surprising that his supporters also truly do believe that Trump will erase the U.S. Debt in 8 years.

to paraphrase...."never underestimate the ignorant"

originally posted by: muse7
The guy has said that if he shot someone in the middle of the street his followers would still support him...

It isn't that surprising that his supporters also truly do believe that Trump will erase the U.S. Debt in 8 years.

Do you think Trump actually meant this for real, or do you think it might be an expression to emphasize the loyalty of his voters?

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

Of course a nation's budget is not the same as a household budget.

The statement was "If we ran our household budgets the way the current administration runs the budget"
Meaning - if it was run with the same carelessness, wastefulness, and disregard for getting further and further into debt.

In theory, that applies to both.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: muse7
The guy has said that if he shot someone in the middle of the street his followers would still support him...

It isn't that surprising that his supporters also truly do believe that Trump will erase the U.S. Debt in 8 years.

Do you think Trump actually meant this for real, or do you think it might be an expression to emphasize the loyalty of his voters?

Well, he said that women that have abortions need to be punished. Not much difference imo.

and these little gems....

bragging about the size of his unit....
politicalhumor.about.com...

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: BlueAjah

The comparison is a gross oversimplification, and fundamentally disavows 99% of the source of this debt, which is -- at its core -- a manifestation of trust in the "dollars" we have in circulation.

Not everyone has the same understanding about government finances. One's understanding, or lack thereof, comes from many factors.

What I can see, over the long term, is the masses have been programmed to believe carrying government debt is bad and undesirable.

I don't know if you'd agree or not with what I see (the programming part) but that's what I thought when I read your reply to the other poster. I don't know enough to confidently state if I think carrying government debt is good or bad but I can say a whole system of finance has been built upon it and a whole lot of people are convinced it's bad.

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

If you truly believe that all of our debt is based on bonds, then you are misguided.
Do you know where your tax dollars go?

The U.S. government paid an Afghan construction firm nearly $500,000 in 2012 to build an Afghan police training center that began to disintegrate in the rain four months after the project was finished because it was built with mud bricks. And why were our taxes used to build a police station in Afghan?

A nonprofit contractor billed the U.S. Agency for International Development $1.1 million for staff parties and lavish retreats.

Citizens Against Government Waste estimated that the government could save $24 billion over five years if they would restart an audit program to identify Medicare fraud.

www.washingtonpost.com...

The National Institute of Health’s Center for Alternative and Complimentary Medicine spent $387,000 to study the effects of Swedish massages on rabbits.

The Department of Interior spent $10,000 to monitor the growth rate of saltmarsh grass. In other words, the government is paying people to watch grass grow.

The National Science Foundation has granted more than $200,000 to a research project that is trying to determine how and why Wikipedia is sexist.

The National Institute of Health funded a study to see if mothers love dogs as much as they love kids. Regardless of the results, this experiment cost taxpayers $371,026.

The federal government has granted $804,254 for the development of a smartphone game called “Kiddio: Food Fight.” The game is intended to teach parents how to convince their children to try and eat new healthier food choices.

The National Endowment for the Humanities has provided $47,000 for undergraduate classes that teach students about laughing and humor.

The National Science Foundation spent $856,000 to teach mountain lions how to walk on treadmills as part of a research project whose aim was to better understand mountain lions’ instincts.

dailysignal.com...

There are many examples of wasteful spending here:
www.taxpayer.net...

There is a long, shocking list of wasteful spending here:
posey.house.gov...

Including tens of billions on "Food Stamps for Taco Bell, Beer, and Condoms" (of course under Bernie, that kind of spending will increase)