The Reign of Trump

[Brian Peacock]

And doesn't a higher interest rate reduce the 'debt ceiling' the US operates under which could cripple or outright collapse the US economy as the interest on your debt alone meets or exceeds your tax revenues.

That's a huge problem with running up debt, which the Obama Admnistration did by getting us up over $20 trillion. But that has nothing to do with China or Japan selling their US Treasuries. It doesn't matter to us who holds the bonds. What matters is if nobody was willing to buy any new bonds.

Obama increased the national debt by 68%. G.W. Bush increased it by 101%. Trump's plan to cut taxes and increase military spending will put him in the same ball park.

Nearly 100% for Obama -- http://treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/searc ... dYear=2016 He's added over $9 trillion to the total debt, and it was about $10.6 trillion when he took office.\\

Bush doubled the national debt too, but he only added about half the total amount that Obama has added - http://treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/searc ... dYear=2009 (Bush added about $5 trillion or so, and Obama is on pace to break $10 trillion added).

I inputted the same dates for each president Starting at inauguration and ending at Obama's inauguration for Bush, and December 7, 2016 for Obama. So, Obama still has about six weeks to go, and it's racking up, of course.

If we give each President a pass for their first year, figuring most of their first year budget was set outside of their control, then here is Bush's number - http://treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/searc ... dYear=2010 (less than $6 trillion added for 8 years) And, Obama would be here at the moment http://treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/searc ... dYear=2016 (12.3 trillion to almost $20 trillion, or about $7.7 trillion added, with one year to go, and so he'd probable wind up at about $8.5 to $9 trillion -- still much more than Bush).


those are the numbers from the US Treasury -- what's your source?

This was my source : https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-p ... nt-3306296

The WAR ON TERR-ROAR (you have to say that with the voice of the bloke who does the action movie trailers btw: it's the law), the WAR ON TERR-ROAR is a perpetual war with a concomitant perpetual increase in military spending built in. Cutting taxes in economic hard times is always expensive and the jury isn't just out on whether cutting taxes for the wealthy benefits the poor, it gave its judgement on that and retired to the Panama years ago - trickle-down doesn't work (nor is it a rather disappointing sequel to watership down). Sure some regulations are bonkers, people are bonkers, but all regulations were brought in for a reason, to balance competing interests and to ensure a level playing field. Getting rid of swathes of regulations may make it easier for people to make money and business to turn a profit, but it may also unbalance that seesaw of competing interests such that it's easier to rip-off and get ripped-off because regulatory shortfalls mean the interests of profits perpetually outweigh the welfare of those who are consequentially effected by profit-making. My point is, that Trump's general conservative agenda is not going to reduce borrowing and simultaneously boost jobs - not without divine intervention anyway - you can't have Austerity and pay down the debt without first undertaking an economic commitment to effectively make everyone poorer, and you can't have economy-stimulating investment without borrowing, particularly when your level of debt so far above your ability to pay that the whole concept starts to look kinda surreal.

Trump will cost America money, just like the presidents before him - and he will probably cost America more money than previous presidents because that's how things are set up, that's how money works. The system of international usury must be fed and watered - it's what keeps the lights on.

[Forty Two]

That link involved only 7 years for Obama. In 8 years, Obama essentially doubled the national debt. The link I used is a US Treasury website and you can put in beginning and end dates and it spits out the government numbers.

[Brian Peacock]

Yeah, I noticed that, and don't dispute it. Your figures stand, as do my points.

[Forty Two]

Yeah, I noticed that, and don't dispute it. Your figures stand, as do my points.

Well, "why" is a different question from "what." And, each President is, to some extent, a victim of circumstance and subject to the cards he's dealt as President. Bush, too, was dealt a hand, and a tough one at that. I don't deny that Obama entered with a tough hand as well. That doesn't change the fact that under his Presidency, almost twice as much debt was added than what Bush added. Double is double. If one wants to argue that it was reasonable and necessary for that to happen, then that's a different question. It's a reasonable argument to have, but it doesn't change the numbers.

My issue with the debt is that now, at $20 trillion, it substantially exceeds our annual GDP and is going up far faster than our GDP is going up. That's a bad economic point. In 2007, the bit was not as alarming because GDP was $15 trillion, and the debt was about $8.5 trillion. That's a far better ratio.

Take away the issue of who is to blame, the fact remains that the current path of debt to GDP ratio is not sustainable. It's dangerous.

[Brian Peacock]

Who is it dangerous for, and why?

At least Obama borrowed to stimulate (as well as to continue to underwrite the financial sectors dodgy bets [hands tied], and to keep the nations war effort on track [hands tied]). Obama was brave in this regard. he looked the money markets in the eye, thanked them on behalf of the American people, and reminded them that the US was too big to fail.

[Tero]

It's all Keynsian for Democrats. They believe there is a future. The right is more Apocalyptic. When it all ends they don't want to leave credit card debt to the microbes that survive the Apocalypse.

[Forty Two]

Who is it dangerous for, and why?

It's dangerous for the economy, and therefore the country, because the US, like other countries uses sovereign debt to finance operations. Moderate debt to GDP ratio is acceptable and even beneficial, but excessive debt to GDP ratio is bad news. A higher debt-to-GDP ratio is acceptable when the buyers of the debt are either domestic investors (citizens) or repeat buyers that have a reason for buying. However, where debt held is predominantly foreign investors, then that's a red flag. A higher debt-to-GDP ratio is also acceptable when an economy is rapidly growing, because its future earnings will be able to pay off the debt more quickly. However, where the economy is stagnant or growing very slowly, then increasing debt to GDP-ratio is a bad sign.

At least Obama borrowed to stimulate (as well as to continue to underwrite the financial sectors dodgy bets [hands tied], and to keep the nations war effort on track [hands tied]). Obama was brave in this regard. he looked the money markets in the eye, thanked them on behalf of the American people, and reminded them that the US was too big to fail.

Take away the issue of blame. Obama and Bush both borrowed to stimulate, but the growth rate of the US economy is fairly slow, especially when compared to the rate of debt increase. I have no concern about blaming Obama. What I'm concerned about is the way forward. That way forward is not sustainable at the rate we're going. I mean, do we want a $25 or $30 trillion debt in a few years and a debt to GDP ratio of, say 150%? Greece was teetering on collapse at 160% debt to GDP ratio. If it goes that way, foreign buyers of debt will start thinking twice about buying more of it. If you can't sell more debt, then you won't have the money to pay the service (vig) on the debts and that's when you start threatening default or actually default.

The analogy here is that the US goes out "on the street" for financing. The "vig" needs to be paid. If the US borrows too much and starts having a hard time paying back, then the loan shark gets nervous. A nervous loan shark starts looking to "protect his investment." And, therein lies one of the dangers.

[Tero]

Smoke out all thouse science folks

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ene ... _alert-hse

Energy dept folks believing in science to be removed

[Tero]

Puppy dog Ryan jumping up and down, eager to ruin people's lives
Paul Ryan: I had a 'very exciting meeting' with Trump today
http://www.politico.com/video/2016/12/p ... day-061754

[Tyrannical]

Scott Adams of Dilbert fame has an interesting blog where he talks about Trump and his ability of persuasion.

Adams is quite an interesting guy, has written several books on persuasion and has studied hypnotism for decades.

[Brian Peacock]

Trump is a Mentalist.

[pErvinalia]

Marxist hypnotist!

[Tero]

explainer in chief

What’s Trump’s agenda? Newt has some ideas.
Gingrich, you may recall, is very good at conceiving of this kind of devious strategy.

“What you want is to pit yourself against corrupt, dishonest, incompetent and sometimes criminal bureaucrats who are hurting veterans,” he told me. “And then you say, ‘All right, all you Democrats who are up in ’18, you want to vote to keep hurting veterans?’”

The second assault Gingrich wants to launch on the governing establishment is a bid to eliminate the Congressional Budget Office. This is the little-known, nonpartisan group of government economists that “scores” legislative proposals, meaning it tells you how much your tax cuts or your wall is likely to cost the government over a period of years.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/whats-trumps ... 40002.html

[DaveDodo007]

suck it up losers.

[Brian Peacock]

Oo look. Trump is being showered with cash. How apt.