Trump on Coming Debt Crisis: ‘I Won’t Be Here’ When It Blows Up

[GMDino]

"Promises made, promises kept"?  

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-on-coming-debt-crisis-i-wont-be-here-when-it-blows-up?fbclid=IwAR2CSNfnTgKL-CTz7QM4O2dkKMR3JzSsjyaybOj_7Bhk1RlWNZ9Ycj_x4Mg

Quote:[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]Since the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump’s aides and advisers have tried to convince him of the importance of tackling the national debt.[/color]


[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]Sources close to the president say he has repeatedly shrugged it off, implying that he doesn’t have to worry about the money owed to America’s creditors—currently about $21 trillion—because he won’t be around to shoulder the blame when it becomes even more untenable.[/color]

[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]The friction came to a head in early 2017 when senior officials offered Trump charts and graphics laying out the numbers and showing a “hockey stick” spike in the national debt in the not-too-distant future. In response, Trump noted that the data suggested the debt would reach a critical mass only after his possible second term in office.[/color]


[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]“Yeah, but I won’t be here,” the president bluntly said, according to a source who was in the room when Trump made this comment during discussions on the debt.[/color]


“I never once heard him talk about the debt.”
— Former Senior White House official


[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]The episode illustrates the extent of the president’s ambivalence toward tackling an issue that has previously animated the Republican Party from the days of Ronald Reagan to the presidency of Barack Obama.[/color]


[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]But for those who have worked with Trump, it was par for the course. Several people close to the president, both within and outside his administration, confirmed that the national debt has never bothered him in a truly meaningful way, despite his public lip service. “I never once heard him talk about the debt,” one former senior White House official attested.[/color]


[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]Marc Short, who until recently worked for Trump as his legislative affairs director, said he believed the president recognized “the threat that debt poses” and he pointed to Trump’s concern “about rising interest rates” as evidence of his concern for the matter.[/color]

[/url]
[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]“But there’s no doubt this administration and this Congress need to address spending because we have out-of-control entitlement programs,” Short said, adding, “it’s fair to say that... the president would be skeptical of anyone who claims that they would know exactly when a [debt] crisis really comes home to roost.”[/color]

[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]Recent reports have suggested that Trump is determined, at least rhetorically, to address the issue. Hogan Gidley, a spokesman for the president, noted that the president and his team have proposed policies to achieve some deficit reduction, “including in his first budget that actually would’ve balanced in 10 years, a historic, common-sense rescissions proposal.”[/color]


[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]But Gidley also passed the buck to the legislative branch. “While the president has and will continue to do everything in his power to rein in Washington’s out-of-control spending,” he said, “the Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse and it’s time for them to work with this president to reduce the debt.”[/color]


[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]Those close to Trump say that one reason the issue of debt reduction has never been an animating one for him is because he is convinced that it can be solved through means other than tax hikes or sharp spending reductions.[/color]


[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]Stephen Moore, a conservative economist at the Heritage Foundation and an economic adviser to Trump’s 2016 campaign, recalled making visual presentations to Trump in mid-2016 that showed him the severity of the debt problem. But Moore told The Daily Beast that he personally assured candidate Trump that it could be dealt with by focusing on economic growth.[/color]


[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]“That was why, when he was confronted with these nightmare scenarios on the debt, I think he rejected them, because if you grow the economy… you don’t have a debt problem,” Moore continued. “I know a few times when people would bring up the enormous debt, he would say, ‘We’re gonna grow our way out of it.’”[/color]


[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]Moore has since championed this approach to tackling the debt as a key part of “Trumponomics,” and has co-authored a book supporting it.[/color]


[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]As Moore recalled, a belief that robust economic growth would solve all problems was the way Trump—starting in 2016—justified the cost of his ambitious proposals to slash taxes, pursue big infrastructure projects, and simply avoid massive cuts to Social Security and Medicare. Since then, the president has continued to show indifference over the national debt, to the consternation of more traditionally conservative associates.[/color]

Quote:
Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump




Remember, as a senator, Obama did not vote for increasing the debt ceiling http://bit.ly/f7yQrU  I guess things change when President?!

43
2:55 PM - Jan 14, 2013
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Obama: Not Always a Fan of Upping Debt Ceiling
While President Obama’s economic advisor Austin Goolsbee argued Sunday that a refusal by the Senate to increase the government’s debt ceiling (currently $14.3 trillion) would be “catastrophic” and …
nationalreview.com

295 people are talking about this


Twitter Ads info and privacy



[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]One current senior Trump administration official vented that Trump “doesn’t really care” about actually attacking the debt “crisis,” and prefers simply “jobs and growth, whatever that means.”[/color]


[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]For the most part, the Republican Party has gone along. Over the first two years of the Trump administration, congressional Republicans have slashed taxes dramatically while increasing defense and discretionary spending, all without giving much indication that they’re going to take a stab at dramatically gutting certain popular entitlements.[/color]


[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]The results have not been what Trump and Moore have promised; at least not yet. Economic growth increased over the past year—including a robust 4.1 percent in the second quarter of 2018—but the federal deficit has ballooned as well, in part because the government has taken in less revenue because of the tax cuts. Current forecasts are not too rosy about the future economy.[/color]


[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]Recently, both Trump and some Republican lawmakers have hinted at regret over their approach. Earlier this year, Trump conveyed his disappointment with signing a large spending bill, particularly after he saw typically friendly allies on Fox News tear into him for supporting legislation that they viewed as funding Democratic priorities, exacerbating the national debt, and ditching his pledge to build a gigantic border wall, according to a report at the time in Axios.[/color]


[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]Sources close to the president tell The Daily Beast that Trump was genuinely taken aback by the severity of this mini-revolt from MAGA loyalists.[/color]

Quote:
Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump




Funny to hear the Democrats talking about the National Debt when President Obama doubled it in only 8 years!

123K
9:23 PM - Nov 29, 2017
Twitter Ads info and privacy

63.4K people are talking about this


[url=https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256]Twitter Ads info and privacy



[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]However, right-leaning reformers shouldn’t be holding their breath.[/color]


[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]The Washington Post recently reported that Trump had instructed his Cabinet to devise plans to trim their budgets in an effort to reduce the federal deficit. But Trump also set strict limits on what sorts of programs could be cut—and quickly proceeded to propose increased spending in other areas of the federal government.[/color]


[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]“He understands the messaging of it,” the former senior White House official told The Daily Beast. “But he isn’t a doctrinaire conservative who deeply cares about the national debt, especially not on his watch… It’s not actually a top priority for him… He understands the political nature of the debt but it’s clearly not, frankly, something he sees as crucial to his legacy.”[/color]



[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]The former Trump official adding, “It’s not like it’s going to haunt him.”[/color]

[jj22]

The debt is one of those things Republicans tend to only think about when a Dem is POTUS.

It would be nice however if Congress and the President (any party) takes it seriously and finally faces the crisis.

I've always been fiscally conservative and socially liberal so I cringe when it comes to the ever growing debt.

Too much kicking the can down the road for some of these tough decisions we send reps to Congress to make.

[*Nately120*]

(12-06-2018, 01:13 PM)jj22 Wrote: The debt is one of those things Republicans tend to only think about when a Dem is POTUS.

It would be nice however if Congress and the President (any party) takes it seriously and finally faces the crisis.

I've always been fiscally conservative and socially liberal so I cringe when it comes to the ever growing debt.

Too much kicking the can down the road for some of these tough decisions we send reps to Congress to make.

I think it's more like republicans admit republicans increase the debt like democrats do, but democrats do it so they can give lazy minorities all your money and republicans do it because they have to keep you from being killed by a terrorist or caravan criminal, etc. The debt goes up either way, but republicans will pay a brave military hero to save your life while democrats will use that same money to make sure people on welfare can keep buying lobster.

Basically, both sides incur debt but one does it to help you and the other side does it to hurt you.  Once you can get yourself looking at it that way all the numbers and phd-level economics crap doesn't matter.  You've got it figured out.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

To pay down the debt of the United States, it will hurt a lot. Not just the people of the United States but the world.

Bels would be better suited to tell us how to pay down our debt, but what I think should happen is...

We need to cut spending big time on everything. I'm not talking about how when someone says "Spending will be cut by 50%" either since cutting spending by 50% in a politicians mind is cutting the 10% increase in half and only giving 5%. The way it works now, when they say "We are cutting such an such by 50%" they mean that the department that spent $1 billion last year was going to get a 10% increase making that departments new budget of 1.1billion and giving them 1.05 billion.

I propose raising taxes on everyone making $100.000.00 a year and giving 25-30% less to every department of what they spent last year. If a department spent $1billion, they will now get $750,000,000.00.

Cut our aid to other countries by 50% as well.

I know the reason we give aid, which is to keep those countries stable but it costs us quite a bit.

We have to keep debt though, maybe $7.5 to $10 trillion is a good place to be for the world. The explanation is to long as to why and if you want to know look it up.

My question, are you willing to sacrifice so that future generations have a future?

[Dill]

(12-06-2018, 01:22 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I think it's more like republicans admit republicans increase the debt like democrats do, but democrats do it so they can give lazy minorities all your money and republicans do it because they have to keep you from being killed by a terrorist or caravan criminal, etc.  The debt goes up either way, but republicans will pay a brave military hero to save your life while democrats will use that same money to make sure people on welfare can keep buying lobster.

Basically, both sides incur debt but one does it to help you and the other side does it to hurt you.  Once you can get yourself looking at it that way all the numbers and phd-level economics crap doesn't matter.  You've got it figured out.

4,500 Americans died in Iraq and another 20,000 disabled because Republicans keep us safe?

LOL what you call defense spending some would call propping up a bloated Military Industrial Complex with money better spent on infrastructure, which would put lazy welfare mothers to work.   Phd-level economics crap should matter, so I can get my social security and Medicare.

[Dill]

(12-07-2018, 03:15 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: I propose raising taxes on everyone making $100.000.00 a year and giving 25-30% less to every department of what they spent last year. If a department spent $1billion, they will now get $750,000,000.00.

Cut our aid to other countries by 50% as well.

I know the reason we give aid, which is to keep those countries stable but it costs us quite a bit.

We have to keep debt though, maybe $7.5 to $10 trillion is a good place to be for the world. The explanation is to long as to why and if you want to know look it up.

My question, are you willing to sacrifice so that future generations have a future?

Let's say raise taxes on everyone making over 150,000 a year, progressively.  As far as cutting EVERY department, I say do it smart. Some could probably be expanded.  We need better SEC and environmental oversight.  What we don't need is another aircraft carrier. 

Same for countries getting aid. As Mattis and Kelly tell Trump every day when threatens to scrap KORUS, the money spent on troops and aid to S korea is the best we spend.  We don't want to return to post-WWI thinking on aid.

[Belsnickel]

(12-07-2018, 03:15 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: To pay down the debt of the United States, it will hurt a lot. Not just the people of the United States but the world.

Indeed it would, but the question is whether or not we really want to.

(12-07-2018, 03:15 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Bels would be better suited to tell us how to pay down our debt, but what I think should happen is...

I appreciate this, which is why I will disagree with you nicely.

(12-07-2018, 03:15 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: We need to cut spending big time on everything. I'm not talking about how when someone says "Spending will be cut by 50%" either since cutting spending by 50% in a politicians mind is cutting the 10% increase in half and only giving 5%. The way it works now, when they say "We are cutting such an such by 50%" they mean that the department that spent $1 billion last year was going to get a 10% increase making that departments new budget of 1.1billion and giving them 1.05 billion.

Yes and no. You are correct in describing how spending cuts are discussed. However, across the board cuts aren't necessarily beneficial. We are already spending far less in some areas than we should be as a developed nation. Also, cutting our government spending in such a way impacts our GDP. If we cut government spending, there is a strong, positive correlation to our GDP, and it is a causal relationship. So when we cut government spending, we cut our economy.

(12-07-2018, 03:15 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: I propose raising taxes on everyone making $100.000.00 a year and giving 25-30% less to every department of what they spent last year. If a department spent $1billion, they will now get $750,000,000.00.

Our biggest issue is on the revenue side right now, so raising tax revenues is key, here. Right now we are just not bringing in the revenues at the levels we should be. As for spending cuts, we need to be smarter with where we spend the funds, but I went into a little more detail above. Drastic cuts to government spending would result in a recession. The ways to pull out of a recession are dropping interest rates (which are already very low), cutting taxes (which are already historically low), and increasing government spending.

I subscribe to Keynesian theory, which says that right now we should be cutting spending and increasing taxes. That is what we should be doing on economic upswings so we have room to increase spending and cut taxes when we hit downturns. Politicians since Reagan have loved the deficit spending side, but when the economy is doing well they have refused to do the prudent thing in favor of what the people like.

(12-07-2018, 03:15 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Cut our aid to other countries by 50% as well.

I know the reason we give aid, which is to keep those countries stable but it costs us quite a bit.

Foreign aid is 1% of our budget and has greater returns than that if done effectively. This isn't an area of the budget to focus on.

(12-07-2018, 03:15 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: We have to keep debt though, maybe $7.5 to $10 trillion is a good place to be for the world. The explanation is to long as to why and if you want to know look it up.

This is true and something that most people don't understand. Also, the majority of our debt is owed to ourselves. Something around 30% is what is owed to foreign governments and international organizations and individuals. The rest we just owe to ourselves.

(12-07-2018, 03:15 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: My question, are you willing to sacrifice so that future generations have a future?

I've said before that I am. But I approach this in a very technocratic way.

[*Nately120*]

(12-07-2018, 03:45 PM)Dill Wrote: 4,500 Americans died in Iraq and another 20,000 disabled because Republicans keep us safe?

LOL what you call defense spending some would call propping up a bloated Military Industrial Complex with money better spent on infrastructure, which would put lazy welfare mothers to work.   Phd-level economics crap should matter, so I can get my social security and Medicare.

Puh-leaze...I know you liberals just want to build a tunnel for ISIS to come over here and kill us all.  NOT WITH MY TAXES YOU AIN'T!  




(should I have been more sarcastic in my original post?)

[Dill]

(12-07-2018, 06:54 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Puh-leaze...I know you liberals just want to build a tunnel for ISIS to come over here and kill us all.  NOT WITH MY TAXES YOU AIN'T! 

(should I have been more sarcastic in my original post?)

haha you 're so too late; while your boy Trump is busy bombing Al Raqqa, these guys are set to surface in Cleveland by the end of the week, Courtesy of equipment bequeathed them by the new, U.S. funded Iraqi Army.

Even the light bulbs conform to U.S. gov. standards. 

[GMDino]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/09/politics/trump-mattis-defense-spending/index.html

Quote:President Donald Trump has agreed to a request from Defense Secretary James Mattis to propose a defense budget of $750 billion for the coming year, marking a reversal from plans to shrink defense spending, an administration official confirmed to CNN.


Last week, Trump appeared to call the Defense Department budget of $716 billion "crazy" in a tweet. The next day Mattis and key Republican lawmakers who oppose any defense budget cuts met with the President for lunch to discuss military funding.


The agreement on the $750 billion budget came out of the meeting last Tuesday, which was attended by Trump, Mattis and the chairmen of the House and Senate Armed Services committees, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, and Sen. James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma.


"The President fully supports the National Defense Strategy and continuing to rebuild the military," the official said. "With the help of Sen. Inhofe and Chairman Thornberry, President Trump agreed to $750 billion topline."

Politico first reported the decision to increase the budget proposal.
The larger number tracks with what some experts, including a congressionally appointed panel, have said should be a yearly 3 to 5% increase to the defense budget, which includes money for the military as well as the nuclear weapons elements of the Department of Energy.



The meeting last week came as the Trump administration floated a 5% cut to the Defense Department, reducing the defense budget from $716 billion allocated in 2019 to $700 billion in 2020 as part of a federal government-wide effort to reduce the deficit. Defense officials were planning on a $733 billion budget for 2020 prior to the proposed cuts.

"The Department is committed to ensuring our military remains the most lethal force in the world. We are working with OMB (Office of Management and Budget) to determine the department's topline number," Lt. Col. Mike Andrews, a Defense Department spokesman, told CNN.

Defense officials had said anything under $733 billion would increase risk.

"Defense officials were planning on a $733 billion budget for 2020 prior to the proposed cuts."