Trump lays out plan to bankrupt the USA

[Deleted]

Who knows? Maybe he IS trying to bankrupt the US. If he is, I'd be curious to know what his motives are- besides shits and giggles, of course.

He can't bankrupt the USA even if he wanted to. He'd require the entire country and every citizen to drop their assets by around 100 trillion dollars within his term, the crises in 2008 didn't even reach a 10th of that, and it was the worst financial disaster in human history on both the national and global scale.

I mean he can always try, but he'll get impeached fairly fast if they sense him actually going into that direction.

[ImpTaimer]

And yet, still true. The only one shitposting, is you. I guess if it isn't the Whitehouse propaganda arm in Breitbart, it isn't true right? Jesus christ you guys are ignorant.

Frothing pseudo-intellectual conjecture.

OP's claim is not true, and unsupported by the article. The article itself fails to source the 2018 budget plan, and even recycles a photo claimed by REUTERS for no damn reason.

[Orbitus]

all i need to know to decide that i do not want to be having an in depth conversation about you. please carry on making claims about my views and political opinions without actually knowing them though.

- - - Updated - - -



everyone needs to look at this comment. @Orbitus you especially.

Sorry, but you aren't helping your case any. It is clear you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. Considering we can see your entire posting history and see that you have been doing nothing but defending Trump and Republicans on every post you make in the Off-Topic section, we can absolutely claim you are a partisan shill.

And Imptrainer's comment is really the only shitpost in this thread. Thanks for trying.

[alexw]

Thats debatable. Ultimately defecit spending should fulfil a policy decision. If you argue for full employment the youll need more defecit spending. If you want deflation well not as much.

Not really. The end result is the same, as the propensity to spend is extremely low among the super-rich and they have vastly more savings than is needed to fulfill the investment needs of the economy. So there won't be any loss of economic demand from higher taxes on the rich but instead there will be an increase from the infrastructure rebuild and ensuing multiplier effects. Thus economic demand rises without the potential negative consequences of increasing the deficit. Moreover it rebalances the economy as it needs to be rebalanced, away from the super-rich to the average who would be the ones who would inevitably have to pick up the tab of the increased deficit in the future.

Of course the republicans are all about fellating the super rich so they will take the option of harming the economy to throw more money at them. Republicans have a long history of economic mismanagement. Its why they have to rely on feels and outrage to win elections they can't rely on their economic accomplishments.

[ImpTaimer]

The source is Trump's/Obama's twitter account LOL.

You are more then welcome to go look for yourself, as of the post of the OP it was still there. Do you not know what the blue check mark means on twitter accounts?

Twitter is not a credible source for government information.

[Orbitus]

Frothing pseudo-intellectual conjecture.

OP's claim is not true, and unsupported by the article. The article itself fails to source the 2018 budget plan, and even recycles a photo claimed by REUTERS for no damn reason.

Sorry, you aren't helping your argument one bit. But hey, continue shitposting.

[ImpTaimer]

Sorry, but you aren't helping your case any. It is clear you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. Considering we can see your entire posting history and see that you have been doing nothing but defending Trump and Republicans on every post you make in the Off-Topic section, we can absolutely claim you are a partisan shill.

And Imptrainer's comment is really the only shitpost in this thread. Thanks for trying.

Text-book deflection.

[melodramocracy]

Huh. All his chirping about saving billions on various military projects because his business acumen puts the fear of god in whomever's across the table from him (hey, i actually typed that with a straight face) was all for naught.

Who'da thunk it.

- - - Updated - - -

Twitter is not a credible source for government information.

Tell your president that.

[thilicen]

Wasn't he supposed to be doing the fucking opposite?

[Orbitus]

Text-book deflection.

Textbook Trumpster fire.

[namecraft]

Its ok he can just declare bankruptcy again and start a new USA.

this, it's crazy enough to work

he went bankrupt multiple times himself, he knows this shit

[Deleted]

I don't think anyone can say that fiscally draining the US economy of money and funding the military is a wise move; more over draining environmental/science/social programs is a smart move either. Trump is doing all of that and then some, and meanwhile going to porkbarrel infrastructure to loyal constituencies more than likely. He states he's going to lower taxes as well; so I don't see how this will lower our debt - something the GOP was stringent on.

Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39108194
... and bridges to nowhere...

To be fair you could use some new bridges. Or replacements for the old ones - some are bit rickety. Also, the highways and airports need some loving.

[Kujako]

To be fair you could use some new bridges. Or replacements for the old ones - some are bit rickety. Also, the highways and airports need some loving.

and the water system, and the electrical grid, oh and the rail system.

[Acidbaron]

The best part i find about this is the idea that the last wars like Vietnam were lost based on the lack of spending, Or how Iraq was lost since it created a far more unstable area that didn't benefit anyone as it created the fundament of a terror state.

Also to increase the national safety, shame that such things like the supply of clean water is not counted under that either, or programs to develop new technologies to prevent big upcoming problems in our food supply and natural disaster response groups being dismantled much like any groups daring to mention "climate change".

[Deleted]

Dont forget, Bannon and Trump intend to destroy the USA how it actually is. So its no wonder he wants to make the country bankrupt.

[alexw]

So many things wrong with this post, how can he be for draining the US Economy if the only thing he has consistently promised is tax cuts across the board, by definition that keeps more money in the economy or do i need to explain basic object permanence to you. Secondly with regards to "draining" bloated federal programs that have, for the most part, only existed for a few dozen years and have done next to nothing, he can dismantle them for all i care. Big, slow, government agencies are not the answer, States can handle these tasks more effectively, and Trump has said hes for moving more power to the states.

Lowering taxes lowers the debt because both employers and workers have more capital to spend, thus creating more demand for products/services and in turn creating more jobs to contribute to taxes.

Your post is economic illiteracy. Taxes currently are redistributive. They take from the richest with the lowest propensity to spend and redistribute it to the average and poor who have a high propensity to spend.

Thus just about any tax cut is naturally regressive (takes from the poor and average) to hand money to the rich. This of course, is why the republican party always supports tax cuts.

The end result in economic terms however is to take money out of the economy as you take money from people who spend and give it to people who don't and instead pour it into assets pumping the prices of those assets up. As a result we can expect a more bubbly economy just as happened in the Bush era with his tax cuts.

[Ivanstone]

Lowering taxes lowers the debt because both employers and workers have more capital to spend, thus creating more demand for products/services and in turn creating more jobs to contribute to taxes.

W started two wars and tried to pay for the whole thing with tax cuts. How did that work it for him? A 101% increase in the deficit.

You are correct that workers with more money to spend stimulate the economy but slashing taxes has minimal effect on those who pay little or no taxes. Those who pay more taxes (ie the 1%) will not spend the equivalent amount of money and will participate less in the economy.

Putting the screws to the rich (45% income and capital gains tax sounds decent) and shoveling money into the less fortunate's pockets. Welfare, cheeper healthcare, higher wages. Take your pick but it will work out if the majority of the nation receives more money.

[Acidbaron]

Your post is economic illiteracy. Taxes currently are redistributive. They take from the richest with the lowest propensity to spend and redistribute it to the average and poor who have a high propensity to spend.

Thus just about any tax cut is naturally regressive (takes from the poor and average) to hand money to the rich. This of course, is why the republican party always supports tax cuts.

The end result in economic terms however is to take money out of the economy as you take money from people who spend and give it to people who don't and instead poor it into assets pumping the prices of those assets up. As a result we can expect a more bubbly economy just as happened in the Bush era with his tax cuts.

Redistribution of wealth is also good in the long term for those wealthy but trying to explain that to people is often met with disbelieve and can't get a political platform really going since politics is all about the short game.

I wouldn't be surprised if another bubble happened, staying far, far away from anything related to backs that loan money in the US.

[Daelak]

It doesn't matter if might is "superior" to pacifism or not. It's the way of the world. Humans first started standing upright to gain better leverage for clubbing each other to death. We are forged in violence, racial/tribal conflicts, etc. And we always will be as long as we inhabit this primitive frame. Somewhere along the way, we fell out of touch with nature. Much of it had to do with the universalist religions that spread out of the Middle East. Islam and Christianity have assaulted every ethnic religion they've come in contact with. These two religions focus entirely on the presumed afterlife, causing a shift in the collective consciousness to view all things of this earth as inconsequential at best, and a distraction at worse. What this has led to is an absolute rejection of the natural order, of nature itself. The Devil is a metaphor for giving free reign to our animal instincts. Embracing what we are is a sin in the modern world. And yet despite all the self-righteous ignorance of monotheists, our animal instincts continue to express themselves. There is no suppression strong enough to negate it. Nature always finds a way.

It's natural for us to form groups and to expand upon them. Governance within a tribe is based on that tribe's honor code, its values and traditions. Initially, majority of nations operated as large tribes, each with their own defined cultural morality. But again, the advent of certain universalist monotheistic religions has eroded away the bedrock of national/tribal identity, priming the collective consciousness of the people for other universalist doctrines like Marxism. We went from all gods to one god to no god and now we worship Mammon, the money god. Of course the corporations love universalism. It makes it easier for them to market their crap to people. When things like racial, gender, sexual, and tribal identity are eroded and everyone is equally and boringly the same, then we can all just fall in line and buy whatever crap they're peddling this week.

Is that the world you want to live in? Is that what diversity really means? Personally I find it grotesque. I love my Germanic heritage. I celebrate every aspect of it, good and bad. I don't care that the brainwashed universalist puppets want to call me a bigot and make me feel guilty and apologize for being white. I don't care about anyone who is not part of my people. I don't even care enough about them to hate them. You're either in my tribe or you're not. And if you're not, that's cool. You go do your thing. I'll do mine. Conflict only arises when we try to live together, when we try to imagine some John Lennon bullshit hippie utopia as an actual possibility. I believe in true diversity and the separateness that allows it.

The natural order is tribal. The human brain only has the capacity for meaningful relationships with around 150 people or so. This globalist ploy that you have to care about everyone everywhere is nonsensical. You can't really care. You don't actually care. Not enough to actually matter. I sit here safe in the United States, not giving one shit about the Jews and Muslims killing each other over some patch of sand I'll never visit. Let them have their war they've been waging for centuries. Not my people, not my problem. I reject the New World Order and all of its machinations. The species has to get back to focusing on what's immediate: our friends and family, our tribe. That will bring us closer to the openness to Being that our ancestors once experienced.

Migration is as human as walking on two legs. The natural order of humans is to move, explore, and most importantly to mix in order to strengthen human genetic coding, because the point of our existence is to propagate our DNA.

[alexw]

Redistribution of wealth is also good in the long term for those wealthy but trying to explain that to people is often met with disbelieve and can't get a political platform really going since politics is all about the short game.

I wouldn't be surprised if another bubble happened, staying far, far away from anything related to backs that loan money in the US.

The US economy is pretty bubbly already. There are some big issues with respect to unrepayable student debt, and a frenzy of now bad loans made to fracking companies when oil prices were high, without accounting for the possibility of falling prices (basic risk management). But I fully expect Trump to turbo-charge asset prices leading to a fall at some point. Whether it will be bad enough to rival 2008 - we will have to see.