Trump says he doesn't care about predicted US national debt explosion because ‘I won't be here’

[BurnItDwn]

Maybe he expects the Gallows?

 

[sactoking]

Isn't "Who cares what I fuck up in the future? It's all about me, me, me, now, now, now!" the mantra of the baby boomers?

 

[hal2kilo]

Well they have a fundamental problem in that voters like higher taxes on the rich and more spending on services. Republicans on the other hand want lower taxes on the rich and less spending on services.

That only leaves them with two choices. They can either

1) do what the voters want or
2) lie about it

They went with option 2.

Or distract them with abortion, gun grabbers, and killer migrants.

 

[VRAMdemon]

In his mind, what actually happens (i.e. what the rest of us call "reality" or sometimes "events") doesn't matter. Blame is ALL that matters and he's not gettin' any. Also keep in mind that Trump wants credit for anything that is successful within his vicinity, whether or not he had anything to do with it. Maybe with Trump, we could call this antiblame.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I think this is what America needs.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well they have a fundamental problem in that voters like higher taxes on the rich and more spending on services. Republicans on the other hand want lower taxes on the rich and less spending on services.

That only leaves them with two choices. They can either

1) do what the voters want or
2) lie about it

They went with option 2.

The term you want is "Lootocracy". Working people have been losing at top down class warfare for nearly 40 years. Conservatives have been thoroughly conditioned not to see that at all.

Millennials are poorer than previous cohorts. Senior bankruptcies are climbing. Lots of late boomers & GenX'ers face bleak prospects for retirement. There has been a massive shift of income from the bottom 75% to the top 1% since 1980.

But the Rich are richer than ever.

It's not my idea of progress.

 

[paperfist]

Clinton also raised taxes at the start of his first term over deficit fears. After him (besides Trump) we only have Bush and Obama. It’s obvious Bush didn’t care about deficits but who knows about Obama? I mean under Obama increasing the deficit was the best thing he could have done for the nation’s long term debt health as fiscal multipliers for much of his time in office were above 1, meaning every deficit dollar spent made more than $1 of GDP, so deficits were actually making our debt more manageable. After all, if you had to go in debt $100 this year to increase your income yearly by $120 forever that’s a pretty fiscally responsible investment.

Except that $9 trillion in debt Obama spent was more than all previous presidents combined.

All that money he spent on health care is driving costs UP.

Car manufacturers bailed out are now going to be laying off workers.

That was pretty responsible spending.

When Obama left office the debt was $20 trillion. It’s gone up $1.5 since Trump took office. That doesn’t sound like someone not caring about the debt.

And from the same OP article:

“As recently as last month, The Washington Post reported the president had urged staff to draw up a list of wide-ranging government cuts to drive spending down.”

 

[dank69]

Except that $9 trillion in debt Obama spent was more than all previous presidents combined.

All that money he spent on health care is driving costs UP.

Car manufacturers bailed out are now going to be laying off workers.

That was pretty responsible spending.

When Obama left office the debt was $20 trillion. It’s gone up $1.5 since Trump took office. That doesn’t sound like someone not caring about the debt.

And from the same OP article:

“As recently as last month, The Washington Post reported the president had urged staff to draw up a list of wide-ranging government cuts to drive spending down.”

Obama didn't spend money on healthcare. The ACA saved us money compared to doing nothing. I guess you also think we should have let all those car companies fail in the midst of a recession when unemployment rates were already at 10%?

 

[fskimospy]

Except that $9 trillion in debt Obama spent was more than all previous presidents combined.

So what? That was objectively an extremely smart move. You want America to be less debt burdened rather than more, right? If so, you should be cheering Obama's deficit spending as fiscal multipliers were above one.

All that money he spent on health care is driving costs UP.

False. Health care inflation was considerably lower under Obama than under Bush. In addition, the ACA LOWERED the deficit, it didn't increase it.

Car manufacturers bailed out are now going to be laying off workers.

What does that have to do with actions taken almost a decade ago?

That was pretty responsible spending.

Agreed.

When Obama left office the debt was $20 trillion. It’s gone up $1.5 since Trump took office. That doesn’t sound like someone not caring about the debt.

And from the same OP article:

“As recently as last month, The Washington Post reported the president had urged staff to draw up a list of wide-ranging government cuts to drive spending down.”

Trump's policies are projected to add trillions to the debt from the baseline he inherited from Obama despite the economy being in a place where the fiscal multiplier is well below 1. That sounds exactly like someone who doesn't care about the debt to me, how about you?

 

[Jhhnn]

Except that $9 trillion in debt Obama spent was more than all previous presidents combined.

All that money he spent on health care is driving costs UP.

Car manufacturers bailed out are now going to be laying off workers.

That was pretty responsible spending.

When Obama left office the debt was $20 trillion. It’s gone up $1.5 since Trump took office. That doesn’t sound like someone not caring about the debt.

And from the same OP article:

“As recently as last month, The Washington Post reported the president had urged staff to draw up a list of wide-ranging government cuts to drive spending down.”

How about increasing revenues with tax increases at the top? I didn't notice the Rich having problems with being rich back in 1980 when their share of national income was half of what it is today.

How did we come to this place if not via their economic leadership? Shall we let them escape the consequences they wreak on the rest of America?

 

[Maxima1]

Except that $9 trillion in debt Obama spent was more than all previous presidents combined.

All that money he spent on health care is driving costs UP.

Car manufacturers bailed out are now going to be laying off workers.

That was pretty responsible spending.

When Obama left office the debt was $20 trillion. It’s gone up $1.5 since Trump took office. That doesn’t sound like someone not caring about the debt.

And from the same OP article:

“As recently as last month, The Washington Post reported the president had urged staff to draw up a list of wide-ranging government cuts to drive spending down.”

You can't compare the two with such a simplistic observation.Obama came in with a deflationary economy. Revenue was dropping like a rock and unemployment was considerably higher than under Donnie.

http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095655768

cyclically adjusted budget deficit

A calculation of what the government's budget deficit would be if the economy was at a normal level of activity. This is achieved by assuming that the rules and rates concerning spending and taxes are unchanged. As taxes are an increasing and government spending is a decreasing function of national income, during a slump in activity the cyclically adjusted budget deficit will be smaller than the actual, and an actual deficit may correspond to a cyclically adjusted budget surplus.

 

[paperfist]

You can't compare the two with such a simplistic observation.Obama came in with a deflationary economy. Revenue was dropping like a rock and unemployment was considerably higher than under Donnie.

http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095655768

cyclically adjusted budget deficit

A calculation of what the government's budget deficit would be if the economy was at a normal level of activity. This is achieved by assuming that the rules and rates concerning spending and taxes are unchanged. As taxes are an increasing and government spending is a decreasing function of national income, during a slump in activity the cyclically adjusted budget deficit will be smaller than the actual, and an actual deficit may correspond to a cyclically adjusted budget surplus.

Bush before him went through 2 recessions...

Even if Trump is a nut job you can't compare what he's doing with final results especially when we are going on unnamed sources.

How about increasing revenues with tax increases at the top? I didn't notice the Rich having problems with being rich back in 1980 when their share of national income was half of what it is today.

How did we come to this place if not via their economic leadership? Shall we let them escape the consequences they wreak on the rest of America?

I'm all in favor of increasing taxes on 'rich' people, but not in a way that Ocasio-Cortez would probably do it.

I think they say rich people will always be rich because they know how. You give a million dollars to everyone and those that were poor before will be poor afterward, the rich will invest it and remain rich.

Your last line you're talking about rich people or our presidents?

Obama didn't spend money on healthcare. The ACA saved us money compared to doing nothing. I guess you also think we should have let all those car companies fail in the midst of a recession when unemployment rates were already at 10%?

Not sure how it saved us money? If you even look in the OT forum here you'll see people sacked with $6,000 or more health care plans not including deductibles. I know on my end self pay has even gone up.

Good point, on one hand if you let them fail people will be out of work and as you see if you bail them out people will be out of work. Though Ford as far as I'm aware didn't get bailed out and aren't laying anyone off.

 

[BAMAVOO]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ernment-federal-tax-republicans-a8670046.html

Basically the GOP ideology in a nutshell: Make a huge fucking mess and let a democrat fix it all. Conservatives don't fucking care about long term damage to our economy or environment as long as they can extract as much short term profit as possible.

Good grief charlie brown

 

[paperfist]

So what? That was objectively an extremely smart move. You want America to be less debt burdened rather than more, right? If so, you should be cheering Obama's deficit spending as fiscal multipliers were above one.



False. Health care inflation was considerably lower under Obama than under Bush. In addition, the ACA LOWERED the deficit, it didn't increase it.



What does that have to do with actions taken almost a decade ago?



Agreed.



Trump's policies are projected to add trillions to the debt from the baseline he inherited from Obama despite the economy being in a place where the fiscal multiplier is well below 1. That sounds exactly like someone who doesn't care about the debt to me, how about you?

Yes, I want us to be less debt burdened and not dependant on other countries. What in essence people here are saying is that it's Trump's fault and responsibility to get us out of massive debt that was largely the responsibility of his predecessor.

Obama's debt increase was rather deep though, cheer? Whatever the number you want to settle on for debt Obama created there's no way that kind of money can be lauded as well spent for the results it created. To be fair it's government spending the money so it never spent as well as the private sector.

The ACA started off well under Obama, but it's no longer in that state now.

If you're going to invest billions of dollars in a car company shouldn't they be lasting especially if you're saying the money Obama spent produced an excellent return on the dollar?

Like I said, Trump was quoted as saying otherwise in the same article that said he didn't care. Only time will tell.

 

[dank69]

...



Not sure how it saved us money? If you even look in the OT forum here you'll see people sacked with $6,000 or more health care plans not including deductibles. I know on my end self pay has even gone up.

Good point, on one hand if you let them fail people will be out of work and as you see if you bail them out people will be out of work. Though Ford as far as I'm aware didn't get bailed out and aren't laying anyone off.

The ACA reduced healthcare inflation. In other words, the person complaining about $6,000 health care plans would probably be complaining about $7,000 health care plans right now if the ACA had not passed.

We gave the car companies money to get through the recession. I believe most of that money if not all of it was paid back. Now here we are 10 years later, you can't tie their actions today to investments from 10 years ago. Also, regarding Ford:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/f...-jobs-than-gms-morgan-stanley-says-2018-12-03

I think that is still speculation at this point though.

 

[dank69]

So what? That was objectively an extremely smart move. You want America to be less debt burdened rather than more, right? If so, you should be cheering Obama's deficit spending as fiscal multipliers were above one.



False. Health care inflation was considerably lower under Obama than under Bush. In addition, the ACA LOWERED the deficit, it didn't increase it.



What does that have to do with actions taken almost a decade ago?



Agreed.



Trump's policies are projected to add trillions to the debt from the baseline he inherited from Obama despite the economy being in a place where the fiscal multiplier is well below 1. That sounds exactly like someone who doesn't care about the debt to me, how about you?

I would be very surprised if paperfist knows what fiscal multipliers are or how they work because anyone that does understand them would not be making the arguments he is making.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, I want us to be less debt burdened and not dependant on other countries. What in essence people here are saying is that it's Trump's fault and responsibility to get us out of massive debt that was largely the responsibility of his predecessor.

I don't think it's Trump's responsibility to get the US out of debt and honestly I'm not even sure if the US getting out of debt would be a good thing. It IS his responsibility to reduce our debt/GDP ratio while the economy is strong though but he's doing the opposite.

Obama's debt increase was rather deep though, cheer? Whatever the number you want to settle on for debt Obama created there's no way that kind of money can be lauded as well spent for the results it created. To be fair it's government spending the money so it never spent as well as the private sector.

Actually the opposite is true. Countries that engaged in less deficit spending after the financial crisis performed MUCH worse than the US did as private demand essentially collapsed in 2008-2009. In cases like the EU where countries made active efforts to trim debt and deficits what they ended up doing is damaging their GDP so much that they ended up worse off than had they simply kept spending. It's like if a business is losing money and decides to cut $1 million from its advertising budget. If that causes profits to fall by $1.5 million you didn't save any money, you just cost yourself $500,000. That's what happened with governments that stopped spending during the financial crisis.

The ACA started off well under Obama, but it's no longer in that state now.

I agree that the ACA is not in a great state at the moment but of all these things it seems that one can be most directly laid at the feet of Trump and the Republicans considering he has done everything in his power to sabotage it.

If you're going to invest billions of dollars in a car company shouldn't they be lasting especially if you're saying the money Obama spent produced an excellent return on the dollar?

Well in that case I would say we would need to discuss how many car manufacturing jobs you think there would have been in the US absent the bailout as opposed to what there will be after these layoffs. The total cost in auto bailouts was ~$9 billion.

Like I said, Trump was quoted as saying otherwise in the same article that said he didn't care. Only time will tell.

While I agree it's hard to know what Trump thinks because...well... he lies about everything I tend to think when someone takes an unpopular stance in private that most likely represents their true views.

 

[Alpha One Seven]

As long as the US has the strongest military, no one is going to come collecting on the debt. It's just silly.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm all in favor of increasing taxes on 'rich' people, but not in a way that Ocasio-Cortez would probably do it.

I think they say rich people will always be rich because they know how. You give a million dollars to everyone and those that were poor before will be poor afterward, the rich will invest it and remain rich.

Your last line you're talking about rich people or our presidents?

So, platitudes & homilies, huh?

You're willfully blind to what trickle down jerb creator activity has done to this country. It's been hollowing out the prosperity of the middle class in an ongoing fashion.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...man-income-growth-inequality-stagnation-chart

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...or-real/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7c005483c810

Pay special attention to that second one-

In other words, a person in the top 0.001 percent income bracket -- who would have an adjusted gross income of at least $62,000,000 -- pays the nearly same effective tax rate as somebody in the top 20 percent bracket who makes $85,000 in adjusted gross income.

Which was before the latest tax cut for the Rich. Mammon, the God of Capitalist greed, demands sacrifice & the 99% are it. Dutiful worshippers today will be thrown on the altar tomorrow & their hearts cut out by the high priests of Wall St.

America needs to find a different place of worship.

 

[fskimospy]

As long as the US has the strongest military, no one is going to come collecting on the debt. It's just silly.

First, the debt is mostly owed to other Americans.

Second, US treasuries underpin the world’s financial system. If we decided not to pay our problem would not be some military knocking on the door, it would be a collapse of the finance sector and a resulting economic catastrophe.

 

[kage69]

It's this kind of shit that makes me embarrassed to be American sometimes.

Art of the Heel(spur), a certain, extra-repugnant flavor of FYGM. But then I guess we shouldn't expect much from a con-man-child with a history of ripping off contractors, partners and other taxpayers if it saves or makes him money. Mr. "Everyone gets an Invoice!" even profits from donation events IIRC. At least he is consistent in his greedy douchebaggery.

 

[Jhhnn]

As long as the US has the strongest military, no one is going to come collecting on the debt. It's just silly.

It's not like that, you silly person. We'll just pay a bigger share of revenues & national income to service the debt, until we can't afford to do a whole lot else. Let me explain how that works. We borrow money from the Rich to give it back to them as tax cuts so we can pay them interest forever. Helluva deal.

 

[1sikbITCH]

As long as the US has the strongest military, no one is going to come collecting on the debt. It's just silly.

Most of the debt is owed to the Social Security program which they continue to say is mysteriously going bankrupt.
The government is stealing your money wake the F up.

You are right though, the most we can do is hope for Vaseline.

 

[pmv]

There seem to be two distinctive trends in contemporary politics.

One is the anger and disillusionment of not-particularly-privileged (but not necessarily the most disadvantaged) people - as currently visible on the streets of France. A fury that seems quite inchoate and that could go in any direction.

The other is a weird kind of death-cult nihilism that seems to have a hold on some of the more privileged, as seen particularly in relation to climate-change. Where applying a 100% discount rate to the future and saying to hell with future generations is apparently the fashionable thing to do.

 

[Bitek]

Yes, I want us to be less debt burdened and not dependant on other countries. What in essence people here are saying is that it's Trump's fault and responsibility to get us out of massive debt that was largely the responsibility of his predecessor.

Obama's debt increase was rather deep though, cheer? Whatever the number you want to settle on for debt Obama created there's no way that kind of money can be lauded as well spent for the results it created. To be fair it's government spending the money so it never spent as well as the private sector.

The ACA started off well under Obama, but it's no longer in that state now.

If you're going to invest billions of dollars in a car company shouldn't they be lasting especially if you're saying the money Obama spent produced an excellent return on the dollar?

Like I said, Trump was quoted as saying otherwise in the same article that said he didn't care. Only time will tell.

I'm not clear where you are coming from on some of your statements. Can you please clarify your position and background?

What is it that Obama spent $9T on?

What was the overall result of the auto bailouts? At least in terms of profitability?

How much GM stock does the gov still own?

Did the gov make or lose money on helping GM?

Were the bailout programs overall successful in ending the recession and growing back the economy? Would we do it again?

What were Trump's campaign promises regarding the debt and deficit?