CDZ Call it a "pivot," call it "flexible," call it "clarification"....I call it flat out untrustworthy!

320 Years of History

Gold Member
Nov 1, 2015
6,060
822
255
Washington, D.C.
It's no secret here that by just after Christmas 2015, I lost all hope that Donald Trump would make a good President. Today, he resoundingly reaffirmed for me that my misgivings about him are spot on, and he did so not by citing the ostensible mistakes others have made, but by, over the course of a ~20 minute interview on CNN, showing that:
  • He simply cannot be trusted and that HE'S WILLING TO JETTISON THE TRUST THE ENTIRE WORLD HAS IN THE U.S.' financial integrity by intimating that the U.S. might arbitrarily print the money it needs to pay its debts!
  • The man actually stated we should persuade our creditors to accept something less than full payment of our debt to them. Never mind that the U.S. Constitution (14th Amendment) guarantees the U.S. debt, so it's actually illegal to act on the bankruptcy idea Trump floated in his interview with Chris Cuomo on CNN. He'd be impeached for doing it.

    That idea isn't just arguably a bad idea, it's ILLEGAL FROM SQUARE ONE! The man didn't propose violating some "random" law buried in the U.S. Code somewhere. He openly proposed violating the 14th Amendment, and he did not simultaneously propose amending the 14th Amendment.

    Now you tell me...Just how much thought do you think he put into that idea? I know the answer. None! Not one one iota of forethought went into it. Do you really think you don't deserve more thoughtful consideration of ideas than that from a person who wants you to make them your President?

    One would think for all the talk about "the Constitution this" and "the Constitution that" coming from the GOP that tons of them would be loudly apoplectic over that remark and expressly noting that what Trump proposed is flat out illegal. But are they? No! So ask yourself in light of that curious silence, "Just how much do these GOP folks care about the USA in comparison to how much they care about getting re-/elected?"
  • He hasn't given a moment's thought to the comprehensive nature, extent and impacts of the tax code adjustments he's proposed.
  • He hasn't put any thought into how with a tax proposal that slashes the federal revenues by ~$1T/year over the next decade, the nation is going to have the money to do the things it must and at the same time lower the national debt/deficits.

    total_spending_pie%2C__2015_enacted.png

Look at that graphic...It clearly shows the facts are immutable and that are obvious to even an eighth grader:
Now with all that as the "lay of the land" that it doesn't take a financial wiz kid to understand, Trump also wants to increase military spending. But in addition, he also wants to
-- balance the budget in 10 years, and
-- not cut Social Security or Medicare.

Well that's just not plausible or possible. It's pure "pie in the sky" rhetoric that nobody but a completely ignorant idiot would actually believe he can or will even come close to accomplishing. But politically speaking, to get votes from folks who don't know any better -- and there are clearly plenty of those folks who don't; apparently about 10M of them at least -- sure, it sounds good.


Amid all that, Trump's supporters say they like that he tells it like it is. He does not. He tells it like he wants it to be in the fictional world that is his. The man has no concept of what distinguishes running the U.S. from running his businesses, companies that he's repeatedly taken into bankruptcy.
 
lol @ renegotiating with creditors.

United States debt is, bar none, the most trusted debt in the world and it keeps our currency alive. The minute a creditor thinks a debtor will default and/or demand renegotiation after a deal is settled, that debtor becomes untrustworthy, and his word valueless.

Trump would singlehandedly crash our economy. It's financial suicide.

But hey, he wrote "The Art of the Deal" so he's good at deals and stuff.
 
It's no secret here that by just after Christmas 2015, I lost all hope that Donald Trump would make a good President. Today, he resoundingly reaffirmed for me that my misgivings about him are spot on, and he did so not by citing the ostensible mistakes others have made, but by, over the course of a ~20 minute interview on CNN, showing that:
Look at that graphic...It clearly shows the facts are immutable and that are obvious to even an eighth grader:
Now with all that as the "lay of the land" that it doesn't take a financial wiz kid to understand, Trump also wants to increase military spending. But in addition, he also wants to
-- balance the budget in 10 years, and
-- not cut Social Security or Medicare.

Well that's just not plausible or possible. It's pure "pie in the sky" rhetoric that nobody but a completely ignorant idiot would actually believe he can or will even come close to accomplishing. But politically speaking, to get votes from folks who don't know any better -- and there are clearly plenty of those folks who don't; apparently about 10M of them at least -- sure, it sounds good.


Amid all that, Trump's supporters say they like that he tells it like it is. He does not. He tells it like he wants it to be in the fictional world that is his. The man has no concept of what distinguishes running the U.S. from running his businesses, companies that he's repeatedly taken into bankruptcy.

The worst part is, he announced this on cable news tv...so that China can know his wonderful plan. I wonder if he would have got all those loans had he told his investors and bankers before hand, by the way, I'll be going chapter 11 on this, so you won't be getting your money back
 
Here is a little exercise to undertake. Examine the current US economy from a financial stand point, as a lender would do when attempting to underwrite and qualify a loan for financing. Then mix a strong drink, you will need it, then ask yourself if a Bank wouldn't lend the money to such an enterprise why the hell should anyone else? Asset rich, cash flow poor enterprises do not receive conventional financing. So which candidate, what party, has a viable plan to reduce the debt, balance the budget, contain the growth of government? Face it the clock is ticking and the limo is running on empty.
 
Here is a little exercise to undertake. Examine the current US economy from a financial stand point, as a lender would do when attempting to underwrite and qualify a loan for financing. Then mix a strong drink, you will need it, then ask yourself if a Bank wouldn't lend the money to such an enterprise why the hell should anyone else? Asset rich, cash flow poor enterprises do not receive conventional financing. So which candidate, what party, has a viable plan to reduce the debt, balance the budget, contain the growth of government? Face it the clock is ticking and the limo is running on empty.

Red:
I don't know what point you think you're making effectively, but I'm certain there's a better way to make it. What I do know is that you are just "running your mouth" because you think you are making some sort of sensible point. You are not. The reason you are not is that there are fundamental differences that your opening remark ignores and that your following statements fail to address that obviate from being sense to the paragraph, thus why I have no idea of just what point you think you are making.

Literally millions of folks daily critically examine the merit of "underwriting" America's debt -- either as a discrete choice or as a choice made after comparing the merit of doing so with the U.S. or with other nations, or even with individuals, corporations and/or privately held companies. Guess what those of them who seek the least risky investment option do? The buy T-bills and T-bonds. Why? Because the decision of whether to "underwrite" an entity's debt is one driven materially by one's tolerance of risk (with regard to the money one will confer to the "borrower") of not being paid back for the money "lent." The most risk averse "underwriters" will choose U.S. debt over all other alternatives.

Backing the debt of a nation, or a state or municipality, no matter how much one wants to consider it so, simply is not the same thing as backing the debt of a company/corporation. There are material differences between governments and businesses, not the least of which are the profit motive and the going concern risk. Easily the most salient indicator of those major differences is found literally in the names of the documents provided in the financial reports of governments and those provided by businesses.

Most obviously you'll find that governments don't issue income statements. Moreover, looking at a government's balance sheet, one finds only assets and liabilities; there is no equity component forming the link between financial position and income.
Yes, a government's statement of net activities -- or statement of operations, statements of net cost, etc.; there are various synonyms that can be and are used -- is somewhat similar to a business' statement of income, but "somewhat similar" and "the same" are not synonymous. The reasons for the differences in actual naming, reasons which lay folks (non CPAs, non financial analysts) may not consider important, are found in the content at the linked documents above. Indeed, were it not for the nature of your remarks, I wouldn't have mentioned the differences, but given the context of your behest, the distinctions are very relevant because the same analysis quite simply cannot be performed on a government as it would be with regard to a business.
 

Forum List

Back
Top