If I have a regret over the last two years, it is not doing a better job of documenting my specific predictions about what a potential Trump Presidency would be like. I would if I could go back and do it again, but I didn’t the first time because, like so many others, it didn’t occur to me until about a week before the election that he might actually win. He did win, and here we are.
Yesterday the President made a deal with the House and Senate minority leaders, members of the party that is theoretically his opposition, while leaving the leaders of the party that he is theoretically his on the sidelines. Now I say theoretically because Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Paul Ryan (R-WI) are hardly allies of the President, nor are they small government conservatives. Nor is the President. Nor are Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) or Chuck Schumer (D-NY). Frankly, why they all don’t just join the same party is beyond me.
The fact is though, private citizen Trump donated heavily to the campaigns of every one of those lifelong politicians. This should have been a warning sign to his supporters, but for reasons passing understanding it was not, even when it was pointed out to them. Trump was a long time Democrat, became and independent, then a Republican, then a Democrat again, now a Republican again. He has no firm principles he believes in.
I’m not here to bash Trump. This is simply who he is. And if I had done the aforementioned documentation he’d be following my predictions as if it were scripted.
So, it is no surprise to me that the issue that he has chosen to cross over and work directly with Democrats while ignoring Republicans is debt. After all, Trump is the self-proclaimed “king of debt.” The problem is that description comes from his business “savvy” where he has become wealthy in the world of micro-economics by borrowing and then sometimes defaulting on debt, leaving his investors holding the bag while he walks away with profit. This is all legal of course, but legal and moral aren’t the same thing.
Further, while this might work in the world of micro-economics, he is now dealing with macro-economics and on a global scale. It’s not certain that Trump understands that he can just have the US file for bankruptcy protection and walk away without paying our debts.
First of all, much of that money is owed to ourselves. We are the world’s reserve currency, which is the only reason we’ve been able to amass this much debt over this period of time. When China and Russia trade, they don’t trade Yuans for Rubles, they trade Yuans into US dollars and THEN into Rubles.
Or at least, they used to. That system is rapidly going away as major economic powers like Russia, China, Australia, Japan, Saudi Arabia and others are starting to conduct business without the dollar. When the dollar stops being the world’s reserve currency, we will suddenly have to start living within our means overnight, and debt will not be able to be taken anymore.
We’re already paying billions on just the interest on our loans. We’re taking loans out to pay our loans. We’re told every time the debt ceiling come up that we must “raise it to pay our bills.” This. Is. Insane. STOP SPENDING.
I’m not saying don’t raise it at this time, but it MUST be coupled with massive spending cuts.
I’ve written about tax reform and how it relates to federalism before. Most of what the Federal government does, it doesn’t have the Constitutional authority to do, but it keeps granting itself that authority in spite of the Constitution. With this usurped authority has come massive unnecessary spending that has put us in onerous debt that we must deal with NOW.
Can you imagine what would happen if we don’t do this correctly? What would happen if massive austerity measures had to be taken overnight? Look at Greece. That. Times a thousand. Some people scoff at that idea. Well, we live in a country where people literally riot over a thug who attacks a police officer getting shot. Imagine what will happen when their EBT cards suddenly stop working. Yeah. Scary.
Plenty of people reading this right now probably think I’m crazy. That’s normal. What you’re feeling right now is called the Normalcy Bias. It’s the belief that because something hasn’t happened to you before that it won’t. Well, your house has never burned down before (probably) but you still have fire insurance right? Why? Because you know it does happen. Well, financial meltdowns have happened before in other countries, and it CAN happen here. It WILL happen here is the debt is not brought to heel.
One of the reasons I didn’t see a difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is neither of them were the least bit interested in dealing with our massive debt, and frankly it was my number one domestic priority. Even if one of them had promised to deal with the debt I wouldn’t have believed them. Neither would have dealt with the root cause of the debt. Clinton has a long history of working to increase the burdensome social programs and regulations that overburden the taxpayers and lead to debt, and Trump never understood it.
The national debt, and the even greater unfunded liabilities that some experts estimate to be nearly $100 Trillion, not just the $20 Trillion in debt must be our national domestic priority, and the ONLY way to counter it is massive spending cuts. Despite the rhetoric of the leftists in both parties, the rich pay their fair share, and if they don’t, it’s the fault of the government for not enacting REAL tax reform as I’ve written about previously. We cannot tax our way out of this. We have to stop spending.
Trump’s “betrayal” of the GOP leadership (I see it as just returning to his roots) is really just dealing with debt in the only way he knows how: take out more debt. These are dangerous times for our country, but the looming debt bubble may be the most dangerous issue of all, and if it isn’t tackled quickly and smartly, we may not survive. Unfortunately, few in the two party system in Washington are inclined or capable of doing what must be done.
Fed survey cites rising concerns about trade tariffs
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Federal Reserve said Wednesday that the U.S. economy was growing in the fall, but there were concerns about higher tariffs from a widening trade war, rising interest rates and tight labor markets.
In its latest report on economic conditions around the country, the Fed said that most of its 12 regions saw moderate growth through late November. Dallas and Philadelphia said growth had slowed, while St. Louis and Kansas City depicted growth as slight.
The report, known as the beige book, found that optimism about the future had waned somewhat, with business contacts citing “increased uncertainty.”
The survey will used at the Fed’s next meeting on Dec. 18-19. The central bank is widely expected to boost its benchmark rate for a fourth time this year at that meeting.
The beige book report noted problems the higher tariffs from Trump’s get-tough approach to trade were causing: rising costs for manufacturers, weaker sales at companies and farmers hurt by retaliatory tariffs imposed by China and other nations.
Even with the tariff concerns, the beige book said most districts continued to report moderate growth in manufacturing.
The impact of rising interest rates affected interest-rate sensitive sectors such as housing, with the beige book noting that new home construction and sales of existing homes were either holding steady or experiencing slight declines.
The Fed survey said that labor markets had tightened further across a broad range of occupations.
“Over half of the districts cited firms for which employment, production and sometimes capacity expansion had been constrained by an inability to attract and retain qualified workers,” the report said.
Unemployment fell in October to a 49-year low of 3.7 percent with economists forecasting further declines in the coming months. A key reason the Fed has been raising interest rates is to slow the economy to ensure that tight labor markets don’t unleash unwanted inflation pressures.
With labor markets already so tight, the Fed said that many districts were seeing examples of firms enhancing their nonwage benefits, including health benefits, profit-sharing, bonuses and paid vacation days.
Despite the wage pressures, the report said that prices continued to increase at a modest pace in most districts although reports of tariff-inducted cost increases have spread more broadly in such areas as manufacturing, retailing and restaurants.
White House intensifies confusion and fear on US-China deal
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration raised doubts Tuesday about the substance of a U.S.-China trade cease-fire, contributing to a broad stock market plunge and intensifying fears of a global economic slowdown.
Investors had initially welcomed the truce that the administration said was reached over the weekend in Argentina between Presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping — and sent stocks up Monday. But on Tuesday, after a series of confusing and conflicting words from Trump and some senior officials, stocks tumbled, with the Dow Jones shedding about 800 points, or 3.1 percent.
White House aides have struggled to explain the details of what the two countries actually agreed on. And China has not confirmed that it made most of the concessions that the Trump administration has claimed.
“The sense is that there’s less and less agreement between the two sides about what actually took place,” said Willie Delwiche, an investment strategist at Baird. “There was a rally in the expectation that something had happened. The problem is that something turned out to be nothing.”
Other concerns contributed to the stock sell-off, including falling long-term bond yields. Those lower rates suggested that investors expect the U.S. economy to slow, along with global growth, and possibly fall into recession in the coming year or two.
John Williams, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, also unnerved investors by telling reporters Tuesday that he supports further Fed rate hikes. His remarks renewed fears that the Fed may miscalculate and raise rates so high or so fast as to depress growth.
The disarray surrounding the China deal coincides with a global economy that faces other challenges: Britain is struggling to negotiate its exit from the European Union. Italy’s government is seeking to spend and borrow more, which could elevate interest rates and stifle growth.
And in the United States, home sales have fallen sharply in the past year as mortgage rates have jumped.
Trump and White House aides have promoted the apparent U.S.-China agreement in Buenos Aires as a historic breakthrough that would ease trade tensions and potentially reduce tariffs. They announced that China had agreed to buy many more American products and to negotiate over the administration’s assertions that Beijing steals American technology. But by Tuesday morning, Trump was renewing his tariff threats in a series of tweets.
“President Xi and I want this deal to happen, and it probably will,” Trump tweeted. “But if not remember, I am a Tariff Man. When people or countries come in to raid the great wealth of our Nation, I want them to pay for the privilege of doing so.”
Trump added that a 90-day timetable for negotiators to reach a deeper agreement had begun and that his aides would see “whether or not a REAL deal with China is actually possible.”
He revisited the issue later Tuesday with a tweet that said: “We are either going to have a REAL DEAL with China, or no deal at all – at which point we will be charging major Tariffs against Chinese product being shipped into the United States. Ultimately, I believe, we will be making a deal – either now or into the future. China does not want Tariffs!”
The president’s words had the effect of making the weekend agreement, already a vague and uncertain one, seem even less likely to produce a long-lasting trade accord.
“We expect the relationship between the world’s two largest economies to remain contentious,” Moody’s Investors Service said in a report. “Narrow agreements and modest concessions in their ongoing trade dispute will not bridge the wide gulf in their respective economic, political and strategic interests.”
Among the conflicting assertions that White House officials made was over whether China had actually agreed to drop its 40 percent tariffs on U.S. autos.
In addition, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Tuesday on the Fox Business Network that China agreed to buy $1.2 trillion of U.S. products. But Mnuchin added, “If that’s real” — thereby raising some doubt — it would close the U.S. trade deficit with China, and “We have to have a negotiated agreement and have this on paper.”
Many economists have expressed skepticism that very much could be achieved to bridge the vast disagreements between the two countries in just 90 days.
“The actual amount of concrete progress made at this meeting appears to have been quite limited,” Alec Phillips and other economists at Goldman Sachs wrote in a research note.
During the talks in Buenos Aires, Trump agreed to delay a scheduled escalation in U.S. tariffs on many Chinese goods, from 10 percent to 25 percent, that had been set to take effect Jan. 1. Instead, the two sides are to negotiate over U.S. complaints about China’s trade practices, notably that it has used predatory tactics to try to achieve supremacy in technology. These practices, according to the administration and outside analysts, include stealing intellectual property and forcing companies to turn over technology to gain access to China’s market.
In return for the postponement in the higher U.S. tariffs, the White House said China had agreed to step up its purchases of U.S. farm, energy and industrial goods. Most economists noted that the two countries remain far apart on the sharpest areas of disagreement, which include Beijing’s subsidies for strategic Chinese industries, in addition to forced technology transfers and intellectual property theft.
Chief economic adviser Larry Kudlow acknowledged those challenges in remarks Tuesday morning.
“China’s discussed these things with the U.S. many times down through the years and the results have not been very good,” he said. “So this time around, as I said, I’m hopeful, we’re covering more ground than ever … So we’ll see.”
Complicating the challenge, Trump’s complaints strike at the heart of the Communist Party’s state-led economic model and its plans to elevate China to political and cultural leadership by creating global champions in robotics and other fields.
“It’s impossible for China to cancel its industry policies or major industry and technology development plans,” said economist Cui Fan of the University of International Business and Economics in Beijing.
Trump had tweeted Sunday that China agreed to “reduce and remove” its 40 percent tariff on cars imported from the U.S. Mnuchin said Monday that there was a “specific agreement” on the auto tariffs.
Yet Kudlow said later that there was no “specific agreement” regarding auto trade, though he added, “We expect those tariffs to go to zero.”
Associated Press writer Joe McDonald in Beijing contributed to this report.
Medicare-for-All would cost more than every penny we’ve spent on defense in the country’s history
Math is hard for many Americans. It isn’t just the sad state of our public school system that keeps the people down. It’s politicians like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who push lies and pipe dreams that keep many Americans thinking the government has unlimited money and there’s no real difference between millions, billions, and trillions.
There’s a big difference, of course, but leftists will never let the number of zeroes get in the way of promoting their ideological goals. As I posted earlier, even left-leaning news outlets like the Washington Post are calling out Ocasio-Cortez for her false statements about Medicare-for-All.
Ocasio-Cortez must have realized when she Tweeted the article that there’s no way “66% of Medicare for All could have been funded already by the Pentagon.” She was certainly playing down to her base in hopes they’d ignore reality and embrace her false notions just because she said it. The Tweet was either a bald-faced lie or she’s an absolute moron. Or both.
Washington Post, which normally supports socialist initiatives recommended by their Democratic puppetmasters, had to call this particular claim out. They gave the claim “4 Pinocchios,” a designation they save for some of the most egregious lies in politics.
It isn’t just about being completely wrong on the Pentagon’s accounting errors. This goes deeper. While fact-checking her claims, PolitiFact decided to do some math of their own. They gathered defense spending data as far back as they could – 1940 – and tallied the totals. Those who understand the difference between millions, billions, and trillions probably won’t be surprised to learn the total spent in that time is under $18 trillion, well short of the $21 trillion Ocasio-Cortez claimed she could have used to pay 2/3 of Medicare-for-All.
The also stipulated that since defense spending was much lower in the past, it’s very likely the total spent since the nation’s inception still couldn’t hit Ocasio-Cortez’ number.
One tip-off is the amount of Ocasio-Cortez’s “accounting errors” is far bigger than the actual Pentagon spending from 1998 to 2015, which was $8.5 trillion. In fact, it’s also far bigger than the amount the government has spent on national security since 1940 and, in all likelihood, in the nation’s history.
Here’s a chart we assembled showing national-security spending by the federal government from 1940 to today. Ocasio-Cortez’s $21 trillion estimate exceeds the entirety of national-security spending since 1940, which checks in around $17.8 trillion. And while full data back to 1776 doesn’t exist, prorating backwards for another 164 years would almost certainly not add enough to make the total $21 trillion.
Medicare-for-All is projected to cost $32 trillion over its first 10 years alone.
Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and all their mathematically challenged supporters need to hear this information now. If you could somehow take back every dollar spent on defense from the time the nation was formed until today, it still wouldn’t be enough to pay for Medicare-for-All. This isn’t a right-wing conspiracy. This is left-leaning Politifact crunching the numbers.
After 57 years, George Carroll’s remains have been found
As car technology advances, every dealership needs a NERD team like Bob Johnson Chevrolet
President Trump defends himself on Fox News
In plea deal, Russian woman admits to being a secret agent
Will Trump suspend the Constitution to build his wall?
President Trump defends himself on Fox News
The administrative state is far too powerful
6 years after Rupert Sheldrake’s censored TEDx talk, ‘The Science Delusion’ continues drawing eyeballs
What classical liberalism is, briefly
George Papadapolous opens up to OAN following release from prison
Ben Shapiro calls out the utter hypocrisy of the U.N. for not condemning Hamas
As Israel destroys Hezbollah’s terror tunnels, Benjamin Netanyahu issues a warning
Thomas Sowell on #FakeNews
This quote from Emmanuel Macron didn’t age well
Jonah Goldberg throws water on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her Green New Deal
Guns and Crime20 hours ago
Will the left finally admit that gun confiscation has failed to keep people safe?
Guns and Crime23 hours ago
Yes, the President really is in trouble this time
Democrats22 hours ago
Why losing his Senate race was the best thing to happen to Beto O’Rourke
News18 hours ago
Baby of Hanukkah terror victims pronounced dead
News22 hours ago
UK’s May wins no-confidence vote by MPs unhappy over Brexit
Immigration11 hours ago
Will Trump suspend the Constitution to build his wall?
News14 hours ago
Is Newt Gingrich the perfect Chief of Staff for President Trump?
Quotes20 hours ago
Ben Shapiro calls out the utter hypocrisy of the U.N. for not condemning Hamas