• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Debt And The Trump Agenda

TheHammer

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
1,522
Reaction score
334
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
20 trillion dollars in national debt and President soon to be Trump has set an agenda to cut the corporate tax back to 15-20 %, build a trillion dollar wall on our southern border, cut taxes across the board for all Americans, institute massive infrastructure spending and dedicate another trillion dollars to rebuilding our military.


Does anybody actually believe that any President and Congress can actually do that without bankrupting America?


Does anybody here know why America has 13 nuclear powered aircraft carriers while the rest of the world combined has only two? The Chinese have one and the French have one.
 
20 trillion dollars in national debt and President soon to be Trump has set an agenda to cut the corporate tax back to 15-20 %, build a trillion dollar wall on our southern border, cut taxes across the board for all Americans, institute massive infrastructure spending and dedicate another trillion dollars to rebuilding our military.


Does anybody actually believe that any President and Congress can actually do that without bankrupting America?


Does anybody here know why America has 13 nuclear powered aircraft carriers while the rest of the world combined has only two? The Chinese have one and the French have one.

It's going to be fun watching the mental gymnastics Trump supporters go through to defend Trump when the debt goes up. We've already started seeing this on other Trump lies. His supporters go "Well you can't go by what he says, you have to go by his actions". :roll:
 
Also it will be interesting to see how the economy goes as Trump continues to Tweet negative and positive about specific companies, i.e., "Buy L.L. Bean." As the President his words will have tremendous impact, as he is beginning to see regarding a list of things where his childish lack of impulse control has resulted in blowback.

Diplomacy isn't practiced with a soapbox and a megaphone.
 
Its so nice to see liberals care about debt again, next they'll remember the Bush era anti-war sentiments they conveniently forgot when Obama was elected too.
 
20 trillion dollars in national debt and President soon to be Trump has set an agenda to cut the corporate tax back to 15-20 %, build a trillion dollar wall on our southern border, cut taxes across the board for all Americans, institute massive infrastructure spending and dedicate another trillion dollars to rebuilding our military.


Does anybody actually believe that any President and Congress can actually do that without bankrupting America?


Does anybody here know why America has 13 nuclear powered aircraft carriers while the rest of the world combined has only two? The Chinese have one and the French have one.

The large sized military and its high level of armaments is not only rational. It has meant relative peace. It is also due to our allies having largely been free riders for whom the US has paid the security the have lived in and from which they have been competing with us economically.
 
Its so nice to see liberals care about debt again, next they'll remember the Bush era anti-war sentiments they conveniently forgot when Obama was elected too.

Yes it is, but not so funny to see that conservatives no longer care about the debt and spending what we do not have.
 
Yes it is, but not so funny to see that conservatives no longer care about the debt and spending what we do not have.

I stopped caring years ago, back when we crossed the point of no return. You can't perpetually be an alarmist, too stressful.

Better to just kick your feet up, throw a monkey wrench in the system (Trump) then watch it all burn. :2wave:
 
I stopped caring years ago, back when we crossed the point of no return. You can't perpetually be an alarmist, too stressful.

Better to just kick your feet up, throw a monkey wrench in the system (Trump) then watch it all burn. :2wave:

Been doing pretty much the same for years now, the Clinton option was the slow death of the Nation continued and the trump option was the down and dirty "rip that scab off" method. Think I am all ready for the quick method and see where it lands.
 
The large sized military and its high level of armaments is not only rational. It has meant relative peace. It is also due to our allies having largely been free riders for whom the US has paid the security the have lived in and from which they have been competing with us economically.

It has meant perma-war in the quest to eliminate "world terrorism" and huge profits for the MIC. If the most powerful and expensive military on the planet cannot defeat and enemy in Afghanistan which has no Air Force, no navy and a rag-tag, at best, army in well over a decade then it has a seriously flawed battle plan.
 
It has meant perma-war in the quest to eliminate "world terrorism" and huge profits for the MIC. If the most powerful and expensive military on the planet cannot defeat and enemy in Afghanistan which has no Air Force, no navy and a rag-tag, at best, army in well over a decade then it has a seriously flawed battle plan.

Many think that we have been in wars. But in all truth, what we've seen were skirmishes for our country and nothing even close to resembling war, when the technologies at human disposal are considered.
 
Many think that we have been in wars. But in all truth, what we've seen were skirmishes for our country and nothing even close to resembling war, when the technologies at human disposal are considered.

Yep, what are a few trillion dollar skirmishes when jobs, campaign cash and re-elections are at stake. ;)
 
20 trillion dollars in national debt and President soon to be Trump has set an agenda to cut the corporate tax back to 15-20 %, build a trillion dollar wall on our southern border, cut taxes across the board for all Americans, institute massive infrastructure spending and dedicate another trillion dollars to rebuilding our military.


Does anybody actually believe that any President and Congress can actually do that without bankrupting America?


Does anybody here know why America has 13 nuclear powered aircraft carriers while the rest of the world combined has only two? The Chinese have one and the French have one.

We've seen this moving a few times. Cut Taxes/Borrow/Spend/Whine about Debt and social programs. Maybe a war with Iran to get the flag wavers to ignore it all.
 
Yep, what are a few trillion dollar skirmishes when jobs, campaign cash and re-elections are at stake. ;)

That is a certain part of the story. But it doesn't mean it make sense to think that anymore than a part of the question.
 
The large sized military and its high level of armaments is not only rational. It has meant relative peace. It is also due to our allies having largely been free riders for whom the US has paid the security the have lived in and from which they have been competing with us economically.

Does that explain our 13 nuclear powered carriers, when there's only 2 others in the world?

How much national debt is too much national debt?
 
Many think that we have been in wars. But in all truth, what we've seen were skirmishes for our country and nothing even close to resembling war, when the technologies at human disposal are considered.

That's funny, they all looked like wars to me!
 
If this presidency doesn't "bankrupt" this nation, can we make an agreement that debt doesn't really matter? Fundamentally those treasuries have to be repaid, but they all have different lifetimes. The treasury gets 95 percent of The Fed's profits, to expand its accounts to pay back expiring bonds while also deficit spending and printing new bonds.

Trump understands this, or was even briefed on how it works. But hey, maybe people in my school of thought are wrong. Can we reach an agreement after 4 years? If this continues, and we still can go out and buy products and services just fine, NOW will you listen? Because we have been saying this for years, only to be called wack jobs. Or do you need another four after that? Making it eight years. How much time?
 
If this presidency doesn't "bankrupt" this nation, can we make an agreement that debt doesn't really matter? Fundamentally those treasuries have to be repaid, but they all have different lifetimes. The treasury gets 95 percent of The Fed's profits, to expand its accounts to pay back expiring bonds while also deficit spending and printing new bonds.

Trump understands this, or was even briefed on how it works. But hey, maybe people in my school of thought are wrong. Can we reach an agreement after 4 years? If this continues, and we still can go out and buy products and services just fine, NOW will you listen? Because we have been saying this for years, only to be called wack jobs. Or do you need another four after that? Making it eight years. How much time?

So the money tree is a forever tree that can last forever, right? Too bad the old Soviet Union didn't understand that and just print there way out of bankruptcy, huh?
 
It has meant perma-war in the quest to eliminate "world terrorism" and huge profits for the MIC. If the most powerful and expensive military on the planet cannot defeat and enemy in Afghanistan which has no Air Force, no navy and a rag-tag, at best, army in well over a decade then it has a seriously flawed battle plan.
I just have to point out that conquest in nations like Afghanistan is difficult and costly. The British lost their first attempt; their second attempt was very painful; and further uprisings eventually made staying untenable. The Soviets won on the battlefield, and were ground down after years of insurgencies. The US won quickly, but westerners were never in a good position to win the hearts of the Afghanis.

It's land-locked, so it doesn't need a navy. They aren't fielding planes or tanks, and there's minimal infrastructure, so there's not much for air power to hit. They're operating an insurgency, blending in with the locals, turning locals against Americans by suasion or force.

I don't think the issue is a flawed strategy. It's that they don't want us there, and we have failed to convince them that it's in their best interests to stay, or to adopt our values.

Granted, insurgencies rarely achieve their goals, but they are also really difficult to defeat.

Anyway....
 
So the money tree is a forever tree that can last forever, right? Too bad the old Soviet Union didn't understand that and just print there way out of bankruptcy, huh?

First, you should read on the national deficit and what it actually is and the repercussions of that until you make such assertions. We can print treasuries for eternity, and banks create money out of nothing. Those are two big hints right there.

And, again, if we have four years of a growing deficit, will this stop?
 
Does anybody actually believe that any President and Congress can actually do that without bankrupting America?
Bankrupting? Yes. We can handle the debts Trump's policies are likely to generate.

That said, it's going to put us in a much worse position, for what is likely to be little gain. In particular, Trump's proposed tax cuts and spending won't do anything to put Social Security and Medicare in a better position. In fact, killing the ACA will deteriorate Medicare's fiscal condition.

Trump's policies will do little to help the current economy. Tax cuts are currently slotted mostly for corporations and the wealthy, which does little or nothing for the economy. The wealthy already save over half their income, so giving them more post-tax income doesn't get spent, so it doesn't stimulate the economy.

After years of record profitability, we've already seen what modern corporations do when their profits go up -- they sit on the cash, buy back stock, and do almost anything other than cut prices. Cutting corporate taxes also won't stop the race to the bottom; corporations will still move their HQ abroad if they think it will reduce their tax liabilities.

Trump will also boost the debt by defense spending. He hasn't actually said how or why he will increase spending, or how that will further protect the US. What we do know is that it's a poor economic stimulus.

Infrastructure spending is a good stimulus... but poorly timed. Long story short: In a downturn, the government borrows heavily at a time when people don't want to lend, and spends the money putting unemployed people to work. When the economy recovers, the government pulls back on the spending, workers go back into the private sector, and the effects of the recession are lessened.

One problem with Trump's infrastructure plan is timing. Whether he cares to admit it or not, we are at full unemployment, and wages are going up, and that's due to private sector employment. If we hire lots of people now to build infrastructure, they will compete with the private sector, which will make those projects more expensive. It will also draw workers away from the private sector, which will increase wages, which in turn will increase everyone's costs, and cause inflation. Another timing issue is that we really should wait until there's a downturn before hiring lots of people -- i.e. we should keep the powder dry.

And again, few of the proposed changes will do anything to reduce the major drivers of the debt today: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense spending, interest on the debt, or the VA. Those alone are at least 70% of the federal budget. (By the way, you could kill literally every other department, and still not balance the federal budget.)
 
Its so nice to see liberals care about debt again, next they'll remember the Bush era anti-war sentiments they conveniently forgot when Obama was elected too.

Yah know what, the underlined is a decent point.

The difference overall is Obamas war on terror didn't involve any full on invasions and more covert Drones and other actions which did make a big difference in public perception, out of sight, out of mind.

But that doesn't make your point wrong.
 
I just have to point out that conquest in nations like Afghanistan is difficult and costly. The British lost their first attempt; their second attempt was very painful; and further uprisings eventually made staying untenable. The Soviets won on the battlefield, and were ground down after years of insurgencies. The US won quickly, but westerners were never in a good position to win the hearts of the Afghanis.

It's land-locked, so it doesn't need a navy. They aren't fielding planes or tanks, and there's minimal infrastructure, so there's not much for air power to hit. They're operating an insurgency, blending in with the locals, turning locals against Americans by suasion or force.

I don't think the issue is a flawed strategy. It's that they don't want us there, and we have failed to convince them that it's in their best interests to stay, or to adopt our values.

Granted, insurgencies rarely achieve their goals, but they are also really difficult to defeat.

Anyway....

Hmm... the Afghanistan war effort appears to be a war for[i/] drugs as we help to support a lot (90%?) of the world's opium (heroin?) production. There is no winning in sight yet there is also no apparent plan to exit the 15 year (so far) US military presence in that nation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan
 
Does that explain our 13 nuclear powered carriers, when there's only 2 others in the world?

How much national debt is too much national debt?

The optimal debt is like in a company. It depends. What is clear is that it should be communicated to the voters.
 
That's funny, they all looked like wars to me!

If one wants to, you could interpret the police reigning in a mob on a street as civil war.
With today's technology a real war like the one approaching would not cost thousands of lives but millions and probably a few billions. Preventing just such war is one reason for the level of armaments we have and the expeditions you take for wars.
 
Last edited:
20 trillion dollars in national debt and President soon to be Trump has set an agenda to cut the corporate tax back to 15-20 %, build a trillion dollar wall on our southern border, cut taxes across the board for all Americans, institute massive infrastructure spending and dedicate another trillion dollars to rebuilding our military.


Does anybody actually believe that any President and Congress can actually do that without bankrupting America?


Does anybody here know why America has 13 nuclear powered aircraft carriers while the rest of the world combined has only two? The Chinese have one and the French have one.


you might want to update your info base.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_in_service
 
Back
Top Bottom