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

Having a plan - any plan - to pay off the national debt in any realistic time frame is good in my opinion. But within 8 years? Not without major austerity measures put into place, and Congress is much too corrupt and self-serving to ever allow that to happen, President Trump or President Sanders at al the helm.

But unfortunately with two term limits, no long-term plan to pay off the national debt would ever come to fruition as it would have to be supported by the proceeding Presidents, which would never happen.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
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)

The figures that you are citing are inconsequential when it comes to Trump being able to back up his words. We currently spend close to $3.5 trillion a year approx. We take in about $2.7 trillion a year approx. If we were able to increase taxes by that margin we could balance the budget. Then we would need to cut that balanced budget by 2/3 to be able to achieve what Trump is selling. It ain't gonna happen.

a reply to: tweetie

No, I think you are spot on. I just think it's actually more convoluted and devious that that.

For example, I believe the actual plan has been to convince Joe Sixpack that debt is both necessary AND bad. The double-bind this creates generates a cognitive dissonance that allows for a MFT of skimming. But even that is only part of the problem.

The other part is that most people don't understand that --- while their grandparents invested in savings bonds, and they don't -- their IRA does (as does social security, state and local muni bonds, etc.

There is a real correlation between the amount of money in circulation and the "level" of debt. This position on the curve can be modified by raising or lowering interest rates, via the mechanism of the Fed, for example.

When a politician (bull# artist?) talks about "lowering the debt," they are pandering to people who -- for the most part -- have a hard time conceptualizing next Tuesday, let alone, 30 years from now. They know this, and in fact, derive their power from the knowledge gap.

The real tragedy here is that the media abdicated their roles as watchdogs between BS artists and people 30 years ago, when the news was deregulated and foreign investment in the networks created the expectation that the news is simply a division of an entertainment business and MUST earn money to justify its existence.

This is why Anderson Cooper will never respond to Donald Trump's claims that, "Under a Trump presidency, we will reduce the national debt to zero by the end of my second term!" with "But, Mr. Trump. Don't bonds and securities have a maturation cycle of greater than 8 years?"

Such "journalism" would literally kill the goose that lays the golden egg, and expose the whole sideshow as the fraud it is, on live TV.

a reply to: ArchAngel_X

I agree...8 years is crazy talk. 40 years is actually doable.

a reply to: Arizonaguy

Obviously my list is only a sample. I was not trying to balance the budget in one post.

If I was able to come up with those examples in a few minutes, think about how much waste is actually in the budget. Our tax dollars are paying for STUPID things, and the government wastes OUR money with no regard for the future stability of our country.

They say that they will not have enough money for Social Security, yet they waste billions.

Cleaning up the wastefulness is just one step in cleaning up the financial situation of our country, but it is a big start.

a reply to: BlueAjah

That's all well and good, but the topic is Trump saying that he's going to pay down the national debt in 8 years. That's either crazy talk or an outright lie.

a reply to: BlueAjah

THAT I agree with completely. Star for you!

That said, some debt is both good and necessary, as debt is a measure of faith (trust) and confidence in the US government. It is the mechanism by which we are a superpower. Eliminating it entirely would make us "weak," to borrow Trump's vernacular.

I noted in my first post in this thread that the greatest single owner of US debt is the federal government themselves, and NOT China or Japan, as Trump's over simplified analysis would seem to indicate. Why should we suspect the amount we owe our own government? Because they are professional liars who budget for $750 hammers. There is no reason NOT to suspect they exaggerate almost everything else.

Here are some of his tax reforms if you're interested: www.donaldjtrump.com...

The Trump Tax Plan Is Revenue Neutral

The Trump tax cuts are fully paid for by:

Reducing or eliminating most deductions and loopholes available to the very rich.

A one-time deemed repatriation of corporate cash held overseas at a significantly discounted 10% tax rate, followed by an end to the deferral of taxes on corporate income earned abroad.

Reducing or eliminating corporate loopholes that cater to special interests, as well as deductions made unnecessary or redundant by the new lower tax rate on corporations and business income.

We will also phase in a reasonable cap on the deductibility of business interest expenses.

Too few Americans are working, too many jobs have been shipped overseas, and too many middle class families cannot make ends meet. This tax plan directly meets these challenges with four simple goals:

Tax relief for middle class Americans:

In order to achieve the American dream, let people keep more money in their pockets and increase after-tax wages.

Simplify the tax code to reduce the headaches Americans face in preparing their taxes and let everyone keep more of their money.

Grow the American economy by discouraging corporate inversions, adding a huge number of new jobs, and making America globally competitive again.

Doesn’t add to our debt and deficit, which are already too large.

a reply to: Arizonaguy

These additional posts were clarifying my previous point that it would be possible for Trump to work towards lowered spending, a balanced budget, and lowering the deficit, for all of the reasons previously posted.

He has said that one thing he would do was to reduce wasteful spending. He has repeatedly said that our government wastes too much money. Some above questioned that, and were saying that wasteful spending was not the issue.

So, I was clarifying that if Trump reduces such wastefulness, it would be a big step in the right direction.

a reply to: BlueAjah

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. I just don't like when Trump comes out and says things lie this. It makes me question my vote for him in the Arizona Presidential Preference.

a reply to: Arizonaguy

He is the only candidate who is acknowledging the problem.
He is the only one who does not owe favors to those who are causing the budget to include stupid things.
He is the only one with the real-life experience in finances and negotiations that provide the needed skills to accomplish what he says.
He is the only one who has the strength and skills to negotiate with other countries to resolve our international financial issues.

If he at least tries, and gets us going in the right direction, it will be better than the alternatives.

You did the right thing voting for him.

I plan to - this is the first candidate in many years that has actually given me hope for the future of the country.

Sounds as ridiculous as his wall that's going to be paid by Mexico. Is this guy living in the same reality as everyone else?

a reply to: WeRpeons

This again. LOL. This has been explained so many times, yet people keep repeating the one-liner tweets that are passed around.

Mexico is not going to get a bill for the wall.

They are going to pay by:
impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages;
increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them); increase fees on all border crossing cards – of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays);
increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and
increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options].

a reply to: BlueAjah

All of which he doesn't have the power to do alone.

a reply to: BlueAjah

You do know this wall is estimated to cost over 10 billion dollars. Increasing fees on the things you outlined won't put a dent into it. Not only that, what about the interest that will accrue on this 10 billion dollars? We won't exactly be paying for this in cash while receiving a small percentage of cash from these increased fees and the expected remittance from illegal wages (good luck on that one, most of it isn't on the books!)

originally posted by: xuenchen

? Is This Even Possible ?

Seems legit

a reply to: WeRpeons

Notice the part about foreign aid cuts?


The U.S. Government gave a total of $209,432,920 to Mexico in 2012.
us-foreign-aid.insidegov.com...

In 2013: 348.72 million in economic assistance and 71.21 in military assistance

a reply to: 0zzymand0s
Oh I do realize that. However, what is more nonsense: His plan or the fact that the USA is still holding debt for things long gone, like World War I and II, and Korea, and Vietnam and so forth? Things that could have and should have been paid off along time ago?

The better question is why does the country continue to hold onto that debt instead of paying it all off and clearing the books of such?

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: BlueAjah

You do know this wall is estimated to cost over 10 billion dollars. Increasing fees on the things you outlined won't put a dent into it. Not only that, what about the interest that will accrue on this 10 billion dollars? We won't exactly be paying for this in cash while receiving a small percentage of cash from these increased fees and the expected remittance from illegal wages (good luck on that one, most of it isn't on the books!)

I've actually given that whole issue some thought. I am hoping Trump has a more pragmatic approach to the entire issue. Picture, if you can, Trump granting amnesty to everybody already here. With a few caveats, of course. Trump gets Congress to pass laws stating that all those adults granted amnesty must pay an additional 2.5% payroll tax . that would generate at least $5 billion a year, and probably closer to ten. Then imagine Congress passing a 5% surcharge for all money transfers going to the top 5 countries illegals report coming from. We could actually pay for the wall in his first term easily.

Of course these wouldn't be the only measures taken. As an additional penalty, all those granted amnesty for illegally being here wouldn't be eligible to apply for citizenship for 5 years and couldn't sponsor family members until full citizenship is granted. Then we make federal offenses for knowingly hiring illegals with mandatory prison terms. We could have a wall, and have it paid for, and solve the entire immigration issue without radically altering the voting demographics for at least a decade.problem solved

I don't know why everyone gets excited about paying off their parents' and grandparents' selfish excesses. Sure, it would be great to be out of debt, but...

I'm not responsible for this bulls#. I'm not paying for previous generations' wars and entitlements I never had the option of endorsing or rejecting, but am now stuck financing like some kind of damn born slave.

No thanks. Find someone else to bail you out, Gramps.