Forum Thread

Donald Trump: Not a Deficit Terrorist

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 15 Posts
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Dallas, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Donald Trump says the government deficit needs to go up and he's making some of the most PROGRESSIVE statements on the government budget deficit that we have ever seen a Presidential candidate make. Too bad he's a bigoted, serial liar, and xenophobic nutcase aligned with the religious right. But Trump is clearly not operating under the same constraints as Democrats have for the last 40 years of Deficit Terrorist rule. Trump is now to the left of Hillary Clinton and Democrats on the need for government deficits and infrastructure spending. While the Reagan-esque supply side tax cuts for rich people proposed by Trump are one of the least effective ways to boost total spending, infrastructure spending is a direct and fantastic way to add to the total output of the economy. Progressives should support infrastructure spending without concern for government deficits; the only thing to worry about is inflation. We should really be embarrassed that Donald Trump has been able to seize the title of 'infrastructure spending' candidate and receive favorable coverage at the New York Times and Wall Street Journal links below. Hillary Clinton and Democrats need to align themselves with financial markets, the American people, and progressive spending priorities, by recognizing the need for larger deficits the same as Trump.

    From the NYT

    Mr. Trump himself said in a telephone interview last week that he believed more borrowing and spending would help lift economic growth, a departure from traditional Republican economics.

    It’s called priming the pump,” Mr. Trump said. “Sometimes you have to do that a little bit to get things going. We have no choice — otherwise, we are going to die on the vine.

    He added: “The economy would be crushed under Hillary. But no matter who it is, the debt is going up."

    From the WSJ

    Republican candidate Donald Trump said Tuesday he would like the government to spend at least twice as much on infrastructure as proposed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, marking the latest example in which he has adopted a position farther to the left than congressional Republicans.

    Mr. Trump, in an interview on the Fox Business Network, appeared to back the idea of a big infrastructure bank, a pet cause on the left that hasn’t attracted significant support from Republicans in recent years.

    We’re going to go out with a fund. We’ll get a fund,” he said. “We’ll make a phenomenal deal with the low interest rates, and we’re going to rebuild our infrastructure. We have no choice.”

  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    interesting. carlitos, since you say the only thing to worry about is inflation how would it manifest itself and what would be done to stop it? do not misunderstand me, i sell products used in the municipal market precisely for infrastructure (water and wastewater) so i support infrastructure spending.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Just to be clear, proposals to spend on infrastructure are not new. President Obama's $447 billion second stimulus (the Jobs Bill) in 2011 was defeated by Republicans. Why? Politics. Mitch McConnell said it was a "charade that’s meant to give Democrats a political edge in an election that is 13 months away."

    Harry Reid countered with, "Republicans think if the economy improves it might help President Obama. So they root for the economy to fail, and oppose every effort to improve it. And they resist anything the President proposes no matter how common-sense, including this plan to create 2 million jobs."

    In March of 2015, Democrats led by Bernie Sanders tried again to push through a $478 billion package of infrastructure spending. It too was defeated by Republicans.

    “It is disgraceful,” Sanders said Tuesday. “No one denies our roads, bridges, waste water plants, water systems and rail are in a state of collapse. We used to lead the world in infrastructure, but now we’re in 12thplace.”

    He added, “This amendment proposed $478 billion over a six-year period, which would not only rebuild our crumbling infrastructure but would put some nine million people back to work for the creation of new jobs. That’s a big deal at a time when real unemployment is at 11 percent."

    Now the Donald proposes even bigger infrastructure spending, and progressives get wide eyed and fall in love with him?

    Sorry, I am not impressed by Donald Trump's proposed infrastructure spending proposals. Are we suddenly to feel enamored with the guy to be seemingly able to do something the Democrats could not do...but in a much bigger way? Wow. Let's vote for Trump!

    Everything Donald Trump proposes is a sham. I doubt that he pulled out his calculator to do any budget planning. He knows that the lack of infrastructure spending is a sore point with many blue collar construction workers so he pulls some big grandiose plan (twice as big as Hillary's proposed plan) out of his ass to pander for their votes. What did he do? Take a quick look at Hillary's proposed infrastructure spending and just doubled it? He doesn't know math and doesn't give a shit about anyone except himself.

    One more point though on infrastructure spending. Much like the initial stimulus, there was a limited ability to spend money quickly on new projects because they were not "shovel ready" as the expression goes. Furthermore, what will limit our ability to rebuild our infrastructure in a big way is skill shortages. We have lost our ability to do these things on a massive scale. Projects will have to be designed. Workers will have to be trained. We will be physically limited by manpower shortages to do much more than the Sanders proposal spread over a six year period.

    One of the trump cards that McConnell and other Republican carry in their pockets is their ability to block any infrastructure or jobs bill out of spite. The Party of No in 2011 is still the Party of No in 2015 and 2016 and beyond. Why change a good strategy that works? No, no, no is all they have to say...and then blame Obama...or Hillary Clinton if she is elected.

  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Agreed, Schmidt. Also note that Trump said "we'll make a phenomenal deal with low interest rates." First this isn't a "business deal" where you screw people when you don't want to pay. Second the federal government issues either debt themselves or makes loans to states and municipalities at low rates to start with. This hack is nowhere near competent to be a mayor let alone president and yet our media, corporate owned of course, does nothing.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Dallas, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Just to be clear, proposals to spend on infrastructure are not new. President Obama's $447 billion second stimulus (the Jobs Bill) in 2011 was defeated by Republicans. Why? Politics. Mitch McConnell said it was a "charade that’s meant to give Democrats a political edge in an election that is 13 months away."

    Harry Reid countered with, "Republicans think if the economy improves it might help President Obama. So they root for the economy to fail, and oppose every effort to improve it. And they resist anything the President proposes no matter how common-sense, including this plan to create 2 million jobs."

    In March of 2015, Democrats led by Bernie Sanders tried again to push through a $478 billion package of infrastructure spending. It too was defeated by Republicans.

    “It is disgraceful,” Sanders said Tuesday. “No one denies our roads, bridges, waste water plants, water systems and rail are in a state of collapse. We used to lead the world in infrastructure, but now we’re in 12thplace.”

    He added, “This amendment proposed $478 billion over a six-year period, which would not only rebuild our crumbling infrastructure but would put some nine million people back to work for the creation of new jobs. That’s a big deal at a time when real unemployment is at 11 percent."

    Now the Donald proposes even bigger infrastructure spending, and progressives get wide eyed and fall in love with him?

    Sorry, I am not impressed by Donald Trump's proposed infrastructure spending proposals. Are we suddenly to feel enamored with the guy to be seemingly able to do something the Democrats could not do...but in a much bigger way? Wow. Let's vote for Trump!

    Everything Donald Trump proposes is a sham. I doubt that he pulled out his calculator to do any budget planning. He knows that the lack of infrastructure spending is a sore point with many blue collar construction workers so he pulls some big grandiose plan (twice as big as Hillary's proposed plan) out of his ass to pander for their votes. What did he do? Take a quick look at Hillary's proposed infrastructure spending and just doubled it? He doesn't know math and doesn't give a shit about anyone except himself.

    One more point though on infrastructure spending. Much like the initial stimulus, there was a limited ability to spend money quickly on new projects because they were not "shovel ready" as the expression goes. Furthermore, what will limit our ability to rebuild our infrastructure in a big way is skill shortages. We have lost our ability to do these things on a massive scale. Projects will have to be designed. Workers will have to be trained. We will be physically limited by manpower shortages to do much more than the Sanders proposal spread over a six year period.

    One of the trump cards that McConnell and other Republican carry in their pockets is their ability to block any infrastructure or jobs bill out of spite. The Party of No in 2011 is still the Party of No in 2015 and 2016 and beyond. Why change a good strategy that works? No, no, no is all they have to say...and then blame Obama...or Hillary Clinton if she is elected.

    Both of the Dem proposals cited above had revenue components.

    Trump is proposing deficit spending for infrastructure. His stated position puts him to the left of Hillary and the Democrats, let alone his own party.

    I'm not suggesting anyone should vote for Trump.

    It is a damn shame that it takes this asshole to say this stuff.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Dallas, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    lonely bird Wrote: interesting. carlitos, since you say the only thing to worry about is inflation how would it manifest itself and what would be done to stop it? do not misunderstand me, i sell products used in the municipal market precisely for infrastructure (water and wastewater) so i support infrastructure spending.

    Lonely bird,

    If government attempts to purchase resources that are short in the economy at current prices, meaning supply does not meet demand, that's going to cause prices to rise, as government and other buyers compete by offering higher bid prices for sellers' goods and/or services. This is commonly known as demand-pull inflation. Government could raise taxes to reduce what other buyers can purchase, or it can reduce its own purchases, or it can engage in longer term contracting at lower prices. It can also take even more drastic measures to regulate the economy. The other type of inflation is supply led where costs are pushed onto buyers by a change in supply. So existing supply shrinks and the existing demand immediately outstrips supply. This cost-push inflation has a more diverse set of drivers than just the level of demand. Key point to recognize is that demand-pull and cost-push have interactive effects.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Carlitos --- I'm not sure that Trump has thought about anything in his campaign proposals. He just has a grab bag of stuff with no thought whatsoever about the implications. No critical thinking...no nothing except to appeal to the emotions of another demographic.

    There is nothing coherent about anything Trump says. Don't give him credit for suddenly adopting MMT philosophy. He doesn't know what MMT is. If you ask him he probably doesn't know the difference between macroeconomics and microeconomics. He has no interest in understanding. Sarah Palin is probably smarter than he is. Believe me!! Ha. You betcha.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Dallas, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Carlitos --- I'm not sure that Trump has thought about anything in his campaign proposals. He just has a grab bag of stuff with no thought whatsoever about the implications. No critical thinking...no nothing except to appeal to the emotions of another demographic.

    There is nothing coherent about anything Trump says. Don't give him credit for suddenly adopting MMT philosophy. He doesn't know what MMT is. If you ask him he probably doesn't know the difference between macroeconomics and microeconomics. He has no interest in understanding. Sarah Palin is probably smarter than he is. Believe me!! Ha. You betcha.

    I'm not saying Trump is MMT. He's just saying what Warren Buffett, Carl Icahn, the St. Louis Fed, and countless others have recognized: the government issues the currency and it can always pay its debts.

    This is a far cry from the "government is broke" talk we got from Obama while on the campaign trail in 2007-8.

    The problem is Americans are broke; and the government should cut taxes and/or increase government spending for public purpose.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Carlitos -- Your statement:

    I'm not saying Trump is MMT. He's just saying what Warren Buffett, Carl Icahn, the St. Louis Fed, and countless others have recognized: the government issues the currency and it can always pay its debts.

    No that's not what Trump advocates. Trump seems to think that the US government could buy back its debt at a discount, much like speculators buying the debt of a corporation in trouble.

    New York Times, Donald Trump’s Idea to Cut National Debt: Get Creditors to Accept Less

    “I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal.”

    "Mr. Trump told CNBC that he was concerned about the impact of higher interest rates on the cost of servicing the federal debt. “We’re paying a very low interest rate,” he said. “What happens if that interest rate goes two, three, four points up? We don’t have a country. I mean, if you look at the numbers, they’re staggering.”"

    "Pressed to elaborate on his remarks, Mr. Trump did appear to step back. He said that he was not suggesting a default, but instead that the government could seek to repurchase debt for less than the face value of the securities. The government, in other words, would seek to repay less money than it borrowed."

    That doesn't sound to me like what Warren Buffet et al are advocating. He is treating the US government like one of his businesses that went bankrupt and for which he paid his creditors pennies on a dollar. This is how hiring this "businessman" to be president thinks.

    With that kind of thinking, then there is no limit on borrowing and spending. That's different than MMT philosophy. MMTers would not put the full faith and credit of the USA at risk as Trump would do with his intent to repay our debt at "pennies on the dollar".

  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Carlitos Wrote:
    lonely bird Wrote: interesting. carlitos, since you say the only thing to worry about is inflation how would it manifest itself and what would be done to stop it? do not misunderstand me, i sell products used in the municipal market precisely for infrastructure (water and wastewater) so i support infrastructure spending.

    Lonely bird,

    If government attempts to purchase resources that are short in the economy at current prices, meaning supply does not meet demand, that's going to cause prices to rise, as government and other buyers compete by offering higher bid prices for sellers' goods and/or services. This is commonly known as demand-pull inflation. Government could raise taxes to reduce what other buyers can purchase, or it can reduce its own purchases, or it can engage in longer term contracting at lower prices. It can also take even more drastic measures to regulate the economy. The other type of inflation is supply led where costs are pushed onto buyers by a change in supply. So existing supply shrinks and the existing demand immediately outstrips supply. This cost-push inflation has a more diverse set of drivers than just the level of demand. Key point to recognize is that demand-pull and cost-push have interactive effects.

    both types are attempts to raise prices by controlling supply. that there is demand for products and services does not always correlate to those demands being met by supply. an example of that is adam smith's baker fallacy. if the baker isn't making enough money and he may decide to close shop and move where people will pay what he wants. government reducing spending impacts pricing but also wages. for instance if municipalities do not issue contracts for infrastructure repair workers in private companies that would do that work are idled. imo inflation which isn't caused by increases in the money supply despite claims by classical and neoclassical economists is a greed/fear response. that is why the governments of the world have been cowed into the actions they take. because marktvolk demand that the needs of "the market" in the form of the f.i.r.e. sector are met. that governments can print money to pay their debts without resorting to issuing debt or even taxes is irrelevant. von hayek and his ilk are in the ascendancy. unfortunately like wile e. coyote they are standing on air.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Carlitos Wrote:
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Carlitos --- I'm not sure that Trump has thought about anything in his campaign proposals. He just has a grab bag of stuff with no thought whatsoever about the implications. No critical thinking...no nothing except to appeal to the emotions of another demographic.

    There is nothing coherent about anything Trump says. Don't give him credit for suddenly adopting MMT philosophy. He doesn't know what MMT is. If you ask him he probably doesn't know the difference between macroeconomics and microeconomics. He has no interest in understanding. Sarah Palin is probably smarter than he is. Believe me!! Ha. You betcha.

    I'm not saying Trump is MMT. He's just saying what Warren Buffett, Carl Icahn, the St. Louis Fed, and countless others have recognized: the government issues the currency and it can always pay its debts.

    This is a far cry from the "government is broke" talk we got from Obama while on the campaign trail in 2007-8.

    The problem is Americans are broke; and the government should cut taxes and/or increase government spending for public purpose.

    Carlitos, Many many times I have proposed penalty taxing derivatives and reward taxing job creating investing. And just as many times you have been dismissive about it. I said people don't have any money to spend and that government spending could intercede until jobs investing supplied jobs so that the economy could be independent of taxation. You dismissed that also and then you implied some evil portent to my political status invoking what I said about work fare by distorting it and then focusing on the distortion. The CFMA and derivatives are the major block to the economy yet everybody is silent about them. Why is that. And again I cite Huml saying exactly what I said about using taxation.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Dallas, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Carlitos -- Your statement:

    I'm not saying Trump is MMT. He's just saying what Warren Buffett, Carl Icahn, the St. Louis Fed, and countless others have recognized: the government issues the currency and it can always pay its debts.

    No that's not what Trump advocates. Trump seems to think that the US government could buy back its debt at a discount, much like speculators buying the debt of a corporation in trouble.

    New York Times, Donald Trump’s Idea to Cut National Debt: Get Creditors to Accept Less

    “I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal.”

    "Mr. Trump told CNBC that he was concerned about the impact of higher interest rates on the cost of servicing the federal debt. “We’re paying a very low interest rate,” he said. “What happens if that interest rate goes two, three, four points up? We don’t have a country. I mean, if you look at the numbers, they’re staggering.”"

    "Pressed to elaborate on his remarks, Mr. Trump did appear to step back. He said that he was not suggesting a default, but instead that the government could seek to repurchase debt for less than the face value of the securities. The government, in other words, would seek to repay less money than it borrowed."

    That doesn't sound to me like what Warren Buffet et al are advocating. He is treating the US government like one of his businesses that went bankrupt and for which he paid his creditors pennies on a dollar. This is how hiring this "businessman" to be president thinks.

    With that kind of thinking, then there is no limit on borrowing and spending. That's different than MMT philosophy. MMTers would not put the full faith and credit of the USA at risk as Trump would do with his intent to repay our debt at "pennies on the dollar".

    Trump's statements have ranged from wildly inaccurate and dangerous to spot on. A day or so after the quote you cited, he told CNN's Chris Cuomo:

    "First of all, you never have to default because you print the money, I hate to tell you, OK?"

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Dallas, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:
    Carlitos Wrote:
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Carlitos --- I'm not sure that Trump has thought about anything in his campaign proposals. He just has a grab bag of stuff with no thought whatsoever about the implications. No critical thinking...no nothing except to appeal to the emotions of another demographic.

    There is nothing coherent about anything Trump says. Don't give him credit for suddenly adopting MMT philosophy. He doesn't know what MMT is. If you ask him he probably doesn't know the difference between macroeconomics and microeconomics. He has no interest in understanding. Sarah Palin is probably smarter than he is. Believe me!! Ha. You betcha.

    I'm not saying Trump is MMT. He's just saying what Warren Buffett, Carl Icahn, the St. Louis Fed, and countless others have recognized: the government issues the currency and it can always pay its debts.

    This is a far cry from the "government is broke" talk we got from Obama while on the campaign trail in 2007-8.

    The problem is Americans are broke; and the government should cut taxes and/or increase government spending for public purpose.

    Carlitos, Many many times I have proposed penalty taxing derivatives and reward taxing job creating investing. And just as many times you have been dismissive about it. I said people don't have any money to spend and that government spending could intercede until jobs investing supplied jobs so that the economy could be independent of taxation. You dismissed that also and then you implied some evil portent to my political status invoking what I said about work fare by distorting it and then focusing on the distortion. The CFMA and derivatives are the major block to the economy yet everybody is silent about them. Why is that. And again I cite Huml saying exactly what I said about using taxation.

    I assume you are taking about Beardsley Ruml. You should read the article you are "citing" again. Taxes are always about regulating inflation, but they have other purposes as well.

    If people don't have money to spend, why are you against cutting their taxes or increasing government spending to add to their incomes to spend?

    You have never explained the mechanism by which taxing derivatives or getting rid of the CFMA puts more dollars in the hands of people to spend. I have told you what I would do: outlaw most of it.

    You said government should be focused on "law and order" with no ambiguity or greater detail by what you meant, and I reminded you that even some of the most insane Republicans recognize the need for a greater role of government than that of a "nightwatchmen" state.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Carlitos said : "You have never explained the mechanism by which taxing derivatives or getting rid of the CFMA puts more dollars in the hands of people to spend. I have told you what I would do: outlaw most of it."

    Outlawing derivatives and the CFMA is perfect. I only say penalize and reward as a transitional way of getting rid of them. The CFMA makes derivatives and futures a very easy fast way for brokers to make money. That is why the derivative and futures market is growing. The problem is there is no effect on GDP because those investments take a non interested position. The money invested is simply gambling money. No products produced. Penalizing or outlawing has the same effect. Brokers will have to look for ways to invest money other than derivatives and futures. The only sources left will be jobs producing. The market and the country thrived until regulations and stipulations began being attacked. The only problem is tha economists and lawmakers will have to positioned themselves opposite of the current market trend of easy money. Making money without working. That is what the CFMA has done, bypassed labor as a way to success. My reference to law and order was directed at the market and trades. Besides previously illegal trades now overlooked, there is open publicized front running for a fee and a few. The fairness intent is totally ignored when success is more dependent on a faster signal feed than on a good product. Economy means trading in goods and services. Securing huge transactions so that small fees can transition in billions of dollars disguising misuse is not what money was intended for. Money was intended to facilitate trades.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    The Commodities Futures Modification Act (CFMA) of United States is federal legislation that officially ensured "modernized regulation[1] " of financial products known as over-the-counter derivatives.

    Who determined what modernized meant and for who did it benefit.