Cruz Quits

[zincwarrior]

And Trump does the Argentina Full Monty.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...n-u-s-debt-seen-as-non-starter-by-bond-market

If you want to destroy your nation for decades, or forever, this is the time honored way to do it.

 

[Sugar Land]

This one going down hill fast

 

[Mreed911]

Part of the problem here is that while we're not a theocracy, the nation-states and those that want to be... are. Politics and religion are literally inseparable.

 

[TheDan]

And Trump does the Argentina Full Monty.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...n-u-s-debt-seen-as-non-starter-by-bond-market

If you want to destroy your nation for decades, or forever, this is the time honored way to do it.

That is coming no matter who sits in the big chair. The government either has to default entirely, negotiate a settlement, or hyper inflate. Either way the government's creditors will never see all the money that is promised to them.

 

[zincwarrior]

That is coming no matter who sits in the big chair. The government either has to default entirely, negotiate a settlement, or hyper inflate. Either way the government's creditors will never see all the money that is promised to them.

Or debt substitution, or nothing. Indeed there are economic arguments now that the level of debt and deficit spending is almost irrelevant (and needed) as the productive capacity is easily beyond demand sufficient to maintain gainful global economic employment.

There is a growing group that thinks we need to reinstall high tariff walls not to protect industry, but to make everything inefficient again, because our supply has technologically outgrown demand, and we need it to maintain society.

 

[bdee]

That is coming no matter who sits in the big chair. The government either has to default entirely, negotiate a settlement, or hyper inflate. Either way the government's creditors will never see all the money that is promised to them.

The difference is that Trump has shown a willingness on four separate occasions to use our bankruptcy laws to screw over investors that lent him money. The government's creditors we're talking about here are people that buy our bonds, specifically anyone who has a 401k or the equivalent. We're talking about screwing over millions of people that might have wanted to retire at some point rather than come up with a way to pay off our debt.

Then instead of cutting spending or raising taxes, we look at taking that money from anyone who saved for their futures. But that's not the end of it. As soon as we start trying to write down the debt, our credit rating goes into Greek territory, meaning buying a house or a car will be like putting it on a credit card instead. Many of you aren't old enough to remember, but the prime rate was at 20% in April, 1980. That is what we would be facing again.

Now Trump has offered another solution to the debt. He proposed a one time 14.5% tax on all wealth (not income) with assets over $1 million. I have to wonder if Republicans in Congress would sign onto that.

 

[Mreed911]

Then instead of cutting spending or raising taxes, we look at taking that money from anyone who saved for their futures. But that's not the end of it. As soon as we start trying to write down the debt, our credit rating goes into Greek territory, meaning buying a house or a car will be like putting it on a credit card instead. Many of you aren't old enough to remember, but the prime rate was at 20% in April, 1980. That is what we would be facing again.

That, or saving up cash and paying for it... like our grandparents did.

 

[London]

Which is completely not what he said. We have to go by what he actually says.

Well, in addition to the other points I made, it's still a moot point due to the fact that as far as I know the President has no power over immigration policy anyway (which is amusing considering what promises he's running on).

 

[Mreed911]

Well, in addition to the other points I made, it's still a moot point due to the fact that as far as I know the President has no power over immigration policy anyway (which is amusing considering what promises he's running on).

As chief administrative officer, I'd say he does. He can direct an agency in how/where to direct its resources.

 

[TheDan]

Or debt substitution, or nothing. Indeed there are economic arguments now that the level of debt and deficit spending is almost irrelevant (and needed) as the productive capacity is easily beyond demand sufficient to maintain gainful global economic employment.
There is a growing group that thinks we need to reinstall high tariff walls not to protect industry, but to make everything inefficient again, because our supply has technologically outgrown demand, and we need it to maintain society.

Using that logic we should just ban tractors. Then we would have a 0% unemployment rate.

The difference is that Trump has shown a willingness on four separate occasions to use our bankruptcy laws to screw over investors that lent him money.

When you invest or lend someone money, you knowingly take the risk that they might not pay you back. That is why we are charged interest based on credit ratings in the first place. You're right that the bankruptcy laws are another area where the government subsidizes failure...

Then instead of cutting spending or raising taxes, we look at taking that money from anyone who saved for their futures.

That is probably coming, too. There's been lots of grumblings about negative interest rates, which is a tax on savings.

Now Trump has offered another solution to the debt. He proposed a one time 14.5% tax on all wealth (not income) with assets over $1 million. I have to wonder if Republicans in Congress would sign onto that.

I doubt it, but it's hard to put anything past them...

 

[London]

As chief administrative officer, I'd say he does. He can direct an agency in how/where to direct its resources.

It would take a SCOTUS ruling on that particular subject to be sure. Giving a specific order to ban certain groups from immigrating into the US (or ordering another country to pay for our wall) is definitely pushing it.

 

[zincwarrior]

It would take a SCOTUS ruling on that particular subject to be sure. Giving a specific order to ban certain groups from immigrating into the US (or ordering another country to pay for our wall) is definitely pushing it.

Obama is doing it now.

 

[TheDan]

Obama is doing it now.

Some of the things he's doing have been legally challenged, but many haven't. It's more effective for those trying to stay in power to use it as a political talking point than to actually challenge it.

 

[oldag]

The difference is that Trump has shown a willingness on four separate occasions to use our bankruptcy laws to screw over investors that lent him money. The government's creditors we're talking about here are people that buy our bonds, specifically anyone who has a 401k or the equivalent. We're talking about screwing over millions of people that might have wanted to retire at some point rather than come up with a way to pay off our debt.

Then instead of cutting spending or raising taxes, we look at taking that money from anyone who saved for their futures. But that's not the end of it. As soon as we start trying to write down the debt, our credit rating goes into Greek territory, meaning buying a house or a car will be like putting it on a credit card instead. Many of you aren't old enough to remember, but the prime rate was at 20% in April, 1980. That is what we would be facing again.

Now Trump has offered another solution to the debt. He proposed a one time 14.5% tax on all wealth (not income) with assets over $1 million. I have to wonder if Republicans in Congress would sign onto that.

Great. Now I have to agree with bdee twice in one week...