• 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!

Trump's pathetic bankruptcy past shows through in GOP's fantasyland tax bill

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
93,583
Reaction score
81,661
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trump's pathetic bankruptcy past shows through in GOP's fantasyland tax bill


By Jonathan C. Lipson and Andrea Monroe
Dec. 21, 2017

This week, Congress passed the bill formerly known as the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” with the support of 278 House and Senate Republicans. At any other time, it would be hard to imagine that congressional Republicans could support major tax legislation drafted in such haste and with so little regard for distributional consequences. It is even harder to imagine that Republican deficit hawks would support such a fiscally reckless and unprincipled bill. Yet almost every Republican member of Congress did precisely that, taking a lesson from President Trump’s playbook: Buy extravagantly today, and leave someone else to foot the bill tomorrow. If this sounds familiar, it should: this is how the president ran his infamous Atlantic City casinos through a record four bankruptcies. We know how that story ended — Trump’s casinos were shuttered after years of losses. While the United States cannot, technically, declare bankruptcy, the GOP tax bill promises to saddle the nation with unsustainable debt based on implausible promises. While his casinos performed worse, on average, than their Atlantic City competitors — losing 40% more jobs and a third more revenue between 1997 and 2010 — Trump did exceedingly well for himself, bragging to the New York Times that “the money I took out of [Atlantic City] was incredible.”

Trump could not have put his casinos through so many bankruptcies without creditor support. In order to gain that support, he made extravagant and unsubstantiated promises about the wealth and jobs the reorganized casinos would create. None of those promises came true. The same can be said about the GOP tax bill. Congressional Republicans would certainly deny that they are modeling their tax legislation on Trump’s business failures. Yet, the resemblance to his mismanagement of the casinos — his only other real experience with large, public organizations — is unavoidable: run up huge debts based on implausible promises in order to benefit the few at the expense of the many. If Trump’s bankruptcy past is prologue, Republicans will eventually try to distance themselves from the future pain caused by their rushed and deeply misguided effort at tax reform. But the GOP tax bill’s passage means that the 278 congressional Republicans who supported this irresponsible tax legislation are all bankrupt Trumpists now.

It will take a long, long time, to pay off the obligations the GOP has now saddled America with.
 
Trump's pathetic bankruptcy past shows through in GOP's fantasyland tax bill




It will take a long, long time, to pay off the obligations the GOP has now saddled America with.

I have always said that NEITHER party cares about the deficits. The only difference is what they want to spend the money on.

That being said trying to tie this to Trump's business failures is pure silliness. Not even sure we know the assumptions the CBO used to calculate the fiscal impact of this bill.
 
Trump's pathetic bankruptcy past shows through in GOP's fantasyland tax bill

I'm wondering how a few chapter 11's out of hundreds of businesses is a pathetic record.

It will take a long, long time, to pay off the obligations the GOP has now saddled America with.

It wasn't the GOP that bloated the debt by 8 trillion, so spare us the false outrage. How long do you think it'll take us to pay off the 8 trillion Obama added? Or have you bothered to give it a second thought?
 
That being said trying to tie this to Trump's business failures is pure silliness. Not even sure we know the assumptions the CBO used to calculate the fiscal impact of this bill.

It's political opportunism wrapped as false outrage.
 
That being said trying to tie this to Trump's business failures is pure silliness.

It is a bit of hyperbole. But it is also true that fiscal conservatism does not exist within the White House nor among the 115th Congress.

Spend. Spend. Spend. Let some other generation pay for our "win".
 
I'm wondering how a few chapter 11's out of hundreds of businesses is a pathetic record.



It wasn't the GOP that bloated the debt by 8 trillion, so spare us the false outrage. How long do you think it'll take us to pay off the 8 trillion Obama added? Or have you bothered to give it a second thought?

Tell us then exactly how Obama "bloated the debt by 8 trillion."
 
It's political opportunism wrapped as false outrage.

Seems to me the point is Trump campaigned as a business genius, a deal maker, who was the only person who had the knowledge and experience to end budget deficits while everyone in America prospered.

Shall we start with Trump being a business genius? Or would you like to go straight to sliming into the New York real estate market on his father's coattails, using his father's money and using his father's well established contacts? We could talk about his long history of business connections with organized crime in New York and New Jersey if you'd like. Or if you want we can discuss the lengthy connections to organized criminals from Russia and the former Soviet Union countries.

Will Trump be using all of the above and more as President of the United States? We can certainly say he may well be doing just that. He certainly cannot remove his lips from Putin/Russian butts. Did they teach that at Wharton, when he went to class?
 
It is a bit of hyperbole. But it is also true that fiscal conservatism does not exist within the White House nor among the 115th Congress.

Spend. Spend. Spend. Let some other generation pay for our "win".

That has been going on for quite a while it is just that once the national debt doubles in 8 years then it is hard to do worse than that. We now have come to accept nonsense such as ten year master plans produced by two year gaggles of congress critters in a matter of weeks. Annual deficits "only in the billions" are now seen as normal or even improvements.
 
I have always said that NEITHER party cares about the deficits. The only difference is what they want to spend the money on.

That being said trying to tie this to Trump's business failures is pure silliness. Not even sure we know the assumptions the CBO used to calculate the fiscal impact of this bill.

Really? Clinton got us a budget surplus that was going to pay off our entire federal debt by 2012 (until Bush 43 pissed it away). Obama inherited an epic economic s**t sandwich and was still able to cut the deficit in half.

The Republicans, on the other hand, well...y'all just voted for a tax cut (overwhelmingly benefiting the rich) that will cost taxpayers at least $1.5T...and even that figure's on the assumption that we'll have wonderful, tremendously bigly growth. Oh, and let's not forget Dick Cheney's quip: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter".

Could it be that maybe, just maybe the Democrats have become the fiscally-conservative party, while the Republicans have tossed all sense of economic conservatism out the window? 'Cause that's sure what the numbers seem to show.
 
It is a bit of hyperbole. But it is also true that fiscal conservatism does not exist within the White House nor among the 115th Congress.

Spend. Spend. Spend. Let some other generation pay for our "win".

Not going to disagree. That being said, I am not sure that corporate tax cuts will cause the deficits that are currently being cited. I do think that cutting the rates, along with less regulations will positively impact growth and hiring in the U.S. Also it will have an impact on the market which means more tax revenue on capital gains. Its not that I distrust the CBO, but there are a ton of assumptions that have to be made in this type of long term projection. For example being off just a little bit on the amount of growth we will have has enormous impact on how this is scored.

In an economy as large and complicated as ours, hard to say what any one policy change will impact us over the next ten years.
 
Really? Clinton got us a budget surplus that was going to pay off our entire federal debt by 2012 (until Bush 43 pissed it away). Obama inherited an epic economic s**t sandwich and was still able to cut the deficit in half.

The Republicans, on the other hand, well...y'all just voted for a tax cut (overwhelmingly benefiting the rich) that will cost taxpayers at least $1.5T...and even that figure's on the assumption that we'll have wonderful, tremendously bigly growth. Oh, and let's not forget Dick Cheney's quip: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter".

Could it be that maybe, just maybe the Democrats have become the fiscally-conservative party, while the Republicans have tossed all sense of economic conservatism out the window? 'Cause that's sure what the numbers seem to show.

I have little interest debating whether the Clinton surplus was sustainable. As much of the revenue from the capital gains due to the dot com bubble went away with the subsequent crash. Nor do I care to discuss Bush I or II as I thought they were both morons and did not vote for either.

Funny when we talk about how most of the new tax plan will help the rich. If you watch CNBC the rich are complaining that they will pay more under this plan. The hosts live in NY or NJ, hence will get whacked with the elimination of SALT.

All this being said, I read nothing of substance worthy of debate. Find a suitable right wing hack to go back forth with.
 
I have little interest debating whether the Clinton surplus was sustainable. As much of the revenue from the capital gains due to the dot com bubble went away with the subsequent crash. Nor do I care to discuss Bush I or II as I thought they were both morons and did not vote for either.

Funny when we talk about how most of the new tax plan will help the rich. If you watch CNBC the rich are complaining that they will pay more under this plan. The hosts live in NY or NJ, hence will get whacked with the elimination of SALT.

All this being said, I read nothing of substance worthy of debate. Find a suitable right wing hack to go back forth with.

"Not worthy of debate"? Fine - that's up to you. But here's a lesson I learned when it came to the complaints of the rich. When I was growing up in the MS Delta, the richest people were the cotton and soybean farmers - they'd get a new truck every couple years and their houses were the nicest around. But when you sat around and talked with them, they'd complain for days on end how the weather was going to destroy their crops, how the prices of their crops was too low to make any money, how they didn't think they'd be able to make it through the year.

That's when I learned to not pay too much attention when it comes to the wealthy complaining about how they're gonna lose so much money...'cause they're whining so pitifully, all the way to the bank.
 
Trump prolly gonna file Chapter 1929 for merca B4 he leaves office .....................
 
Trump prolly gonna file Chapter 1929 for merca B4 he leaves office .....................

True because it's not like a single Obama budget produced the same addition to the national debt or anything.
 
How long will it take to pay off the $10 trillion that Obama added?

Don't mention Obama or you may get the usual retort: "He's gone" "He's not in office" "Stop being stuck in the past" and of course "The topic is Trump."
 
Tell us then exactly how Obama "bloated the debt by 8 trillion."

Here's a hint: There's a thing called subtraction. You should try it some time. Take the national debt on 1/20/2017, then SUBTRACT the national debt on 1/20/2009 and get back to us.
 
Here's a hint: There's a thing called subtraction. You should try it some time. Take the national debt on 1/20/2017, then SUBTRACT the national debt on 1/20/2009 and get back to us.

Everybody likes ass. No one likes a smart ass.

What, you were like the valedictorian of summer school, in Dirt Squat, Texas? Your non-answer completely fails to address the question.
 
There was never an Obama tax cut; it was always the Bush tax cut.

The actual Deficit history doesn't lie. Bush's tax cut, and the subsequent increases in spending led to massive deficit increases. Subsequently, Obama brought it back down, but to a somewhat reasonable level. Now Trump cuts taxes. The deficit will balloon BIG TIME!

us_deficit_history.png
 
Back
Top Bottom