Trump Dodged My Question About the Federal Debt
Reason's Nick Gillespie asked former President Donald Trump about how he plans to bring down the national debt.
HD DownloadThe national debt held by the public tops $27 trillion. It's bigger than the entire American economy—and it's on track to grow faster and faster. In just four years, Donald Trump signed legislation that increased future debt by $7.8 trillion, more than George W. Bush and Barack Obama managed in eight years apiece. We're headed for an economic catastrophe.
So when Trump made an appearance late last week at PubKey, a bitcoin-themed bar in New York's Greenwich Village, Reason's Nick Gillespie went down to ask him about it. And he had a snappy comeback.
Less than half of Trump's new debt was related to pandemic spending. And the COVID-19 relief bill establishing the Paycheck Protection Program, which Trump signed in 2020, was so rife with corruption and waste that one federal prosecutor has called it the "biggest fraud in a generation."And get this: His new campaign proposals would add another $5.8 trillion to the debt. Trump has called himself the "king of debt." If he gets a second term, he just might become its emperor.
- Video Editor: Cody Huff
- Graphics: Adani Samat
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
According to US debt clock dot org, the US federal debt is $35.397 T.
Interest on the debt is the third largest spending item dwarfing only medicare/medicaid and social security. The debt recently eclipsed the (official) defense spending.
Trump wants to increase defense spending too.
How are we going to defeat Russia in Ukraine by cutting defense spending?
Defense spending isn’t the problem. Democrats are the problem.
Defense spending is just one of the problems. Disability fraud has drained the SS trust fund, starting under Obama. Not that it wasn’t in trouble already, due to aging demographics. Out of control spending on Medicaid and food stamps are is also issues that needs to be addressed, particularly since so many employers still say they can’t find enough workers. The federal govt also needs to return control and funding of education to be state responsibilities.
Cut spending.
Okay, specify exactly what defense programs and what Medicare coverage you wish to eliminate, and by how much you want to reduce Social Security benefits. Be specific. If you don't make major cuts in all three you have accomplished nothing on the spending front. The rest of the federal government budget isn't big enough to matter.
Well, pulling our troops out of the Third World would reduce defense spending, but you neocon faggots don't want that. And I'd love to cut Medicare/Medicaid services down to revenue-neutral rather than the ~$1.75 trillion deficit it's causing, but maybe you should offer a "compromise" proposal that actually does that, since you center-right limp-dicks LOVE "compromise."
I want to eventually cut Social Security benefits and contributions by 100%.
I want to cut Medicare by 100%.
I want to close every US Military Base outside of any US Controlled territory.
I want to slash the Federal Government by at least 90%, probably more at this point.
Followed up by "WELL HURRR HOW ARE YOU GOING TO CONVINCE DEMOCRATS TO GO ALONG WITH THAT YOU HAVE TO COMPROMISE BECAUSE POLITICS IS THE ART OF COMPROMISE AND YOU'RE NOT BEING REALISTIC UNLESS YOU GIVE THE DEMOCRATS HALF OF WHAT THEY WANT AND A GOOD COMPROMISE MAKES EVERYONE MAD AMIRITE HERPITY DERPITY DOOOOOOOO!"
The center-right pussies never ask this question in good faith, because they're nutless wonders who can't actually get any spending limits accomplished without getting the populists in the party on board, because those cuts ALWAYS come from their right flank. Always. The last thing they want is to actually cut shit, because they might get accused of being "mean spirited" by the press.
Yeah, it's pretty much an open secret that both parties like paying off the electorate. There's a subgroup of Republicans that want to reduce spending, but they are a tiny minority. As far as I can tell, no such analog in the Democrat party exists anymore.
It's that whole 'Democratic government will last until the populace discovers they can vote themselves largesse from the treasury' thing that was warned about over 250 years ago now.
Well, it happened. Past that it's a question of when the Republic falls, not if.
I want to close every US Military Base outside of any US Controlled territory.
Uh, I think this needs to include a staffing level or footprint or something. Not to be contrary, rather the opposite, every military base (which doesn't already) just declares itself Controlled US Territory and calls it a day.
I have a feeling we tap danced around this issue recently when Kammy said there were no active duty service members operating in foreign countries or whatever.
Calling the military the Department of Defense is a joke. 11 carriers are not a defensive item. Get rid of them. Get rid of strategic bombers and transports. Close all overseas military bases. The nuclear ICBMs are in a different class; I would get rid of them too, but that's a different question.
If merchant ships want to fight pirates, carry security guards with cheap weapons; the pirates are looking for the easiest prey, not the Americans.
It was much better when it was called the Department of War.
Most countries (maybe all?) do not allow commercial ships to dock at their ports if the crew are carrying weapons.
Okay, specify exactly what defense programs and what Medicare coverage you wish to eliminate, and by how much you want to reduce Social Security benefits.
1. Stop sending military aid to every despot, third world hellhole, and reduce our global defense footprint, pull back in NATO, make the Europeans carry their weight.
2. Healthcare spending could be reduced by getting the government’s footprint in that mess dramatically reduced as well.
3. Social Security benefits could be dramatically reduced by returning to a retirement program through eliminating or reducing spending on non-retirees, staggering the age upwards and privatizing a good chunk of it.
You left out entire DEPARTMENTS that shouldn't exist at the Federal level. The PYRAMID scheme called Social Security shouldn't exist either. Unfortunately, I don't have the answer to how to eliminate it without bankrupting those that spent their lives with the IMPOSSIBLE promises made.
The problem with any effort to reform/cut spending is that it’s a multi-decade effort and our political system is a complete obstacle to such long term planning.
Hence spending.
Oh, do you mean Pres Trump made himself available to journalists to answer questions on topics of national interest?
How unlike his opponent.
After two assassination attempts (and COVID!)... in an anti-establishment/anti-Deep State/anti-Fiat/anti-MMT-themed bar... in a politically 'hostile' state with/among 'hostile' journalists.
Hey now, the media has it on good authority that both of those attempts were actually Trump hiring people to pretend to try and kill him for votes.
That is the level of thinking we're dealing with here.
Even setting assassinations aside, there's got to be a question as to whether every bar tab, 'on the house' drink, and footstep in the state isn't an illegal political donation that Bragg is waiting to pounce on.
Trump is not going to reduce spending. He will increase the debt more than even the demos would have because he is going to cut taxes a lot in addition to spending nearly as much as them. In addition his tariffs will spur inflation. The only way to decrease the debt in a reasonable time is to keep taxes constant and reduce spending a lot as well. It won't happen no matter who wins.
A good friend of mine recently told me that he thinks Trump faked the assassination attempts to win votes, and that Trump is no billionaire, that at most he has maybe $100 million in assets.
He's a smart guy, and laughs at the Q-Anon conspiracy theories, but can't seem to grasp that he just as much (I'd say more with the fake assassination attempt theory) of a conspiracy theorist as those he scoffs at.
I asked him if Trump is selfish and only concerned with himself, to which he replied "yes." Then I asked why he would take the very high risk to himself to have some 20 year old take a shot within inches of his face to graze his ear? I certainly wouldn't trust someone to graze my ear from 10 feet away, much less 160 yards. He couldn't really answer, but defaulted to how immoral Trump is and how much he would do anything to get back in power.
It's really sad that smart people will fall for the most obvious lies because of TDS.
And someone actually was killed, which makes it an accusation of murder as well as a ridiculous conspiracy theory.
What is sarc like in person?
This isn’t Jeopardy, bub, just answer the question!
Turd Ferguson
Reasonably sure that Sarckles doesn’t have any friends, so that can’t be who Jefferson Paul is talking about.
It's not. I would think that would be obvious. I took it as a joke and a shot against Sarc.
This was an IRL friend that I've known for almost a decade now. I never really talked politics with him until more recently. I knew he described himself as a left-leaning independent, but it's clear he has full-on TDS. I'm just going to avoid bringing up politics with him, but I will challenge him if he brings it up and spouts nonsense.
It sounds like, there isn’t any hope for him. He should be on the list of those we need to deport/exile to……. oh, how about Somalia?
Smart people don't fall for the lies.
What's sad is how we all try to make the morons around us, friend and foe into something they're just not.
Intelligence isn't the deciding factor. I would argue it's the level of brainwashing/propaganda one's been subjected to. It's the same as when I hear other atheists tell me theists are just dumb. That's certainly not true. There are smart theists and smart atheists and dumb theists and dumb atheists.
Most people don't analyze an argument dispassionately. We all let emotions and environment (upbringing) infest our ability to view the soundness and validity of an argument. I try really hard not to do that, and only analyze things on the merits, but I fail sometimes, as does everyone else.
I wouldn't be so sure. Smart people are much better at deceiving themselves than stupid people.
Uh, yes, that's why this question even could be asked.
Yeah the only candidate worse than Trump on spending is Harris.
"how he plans to bring down the national debt"
Actually the wrong question was asked. Trump keeps adding programs to his campaign pledges and the increase in the national debt is now up to over eight trillion. Harris is FAR for frugal, and her programs, most of which will never get through Congress, would have a far lesser impact even if there did get passed. What should have been asked is why Trump is buying votes with Other Peoples' Money.
HA HA
Harris is FAR for frugal, and her programs, most of which will never get through Congress, would have a far lesser impact even if there did get passed.
They're basically copying each other's proposals, you dingdong.
Also, this gaslighting of yours that Harris won't be able to pass her agenda but Trump will brute force his through is hilariously precious. Save that masturbation for Patterico or The Dispatch where it belongs.
Or The Fifth Column. Moynihan and Welch are embracing that bit of cope wholeheartedly.
Harris doesn't have a party of gimps. Trump does.
bacchys is an expert on gimps because he sees them all the time. It's called a mirror.
I love the notion that it does not really matter what Harris's policies are because you expect the congressional GOP to save you from her worst ideas.
That's been the center-right's primary argument in her favor ever since she became the presumptive nominee. Oh, that, and apparently a gun-grabbing, free speech suppressing, open borders, red diaper baby is apparently within the realm of "normal" to these paramecium now, too.
What's particularly notable about The Dispatch crowd is their quasi-religious belief that someone from the right will always appear by magic to slow down--not stop, mind you--the inexorable march towards the communist utopia. Whether it's Reagan, Gingrich, Dubya, or Boehner, have no fear, because someone always steps up, so therefore resisting the left at the micro level is a pointless endeavor. Just wait for the neocon savior to show up and blunt the charge.
He is right.
If nothing else the GOP is damn good at obstruction. Democrats are pussies who will fund anything a Bush/Trump asks for.
For GRIDLOCK the best formula is a GOP House and Dem POTUS. See Clinton 1994-2001 and Obama 2011-2017.
It amuses me that you give away your actual desire of more spending by calling saying no obstruction.
I am calling for gridlock, you moron.
Straight (D) up and down the ballot isn't "gridlock", Pluggo.
"I am
calling for gridlock, pretending to call for gridlock"Fixed.
Hey now. Just cause he consistently campaigns for dem reps and senators doesn't mean he is lying...
You used the word obstruction. Do you need a dictionary like sarc?
“What should have been asked is why Trump is buying votes with Other Peoples’ Money…”
It takes a real steaming pile of imbecilic lefty shit to assume a candidate can do so, but then, this is charliehall, a well-known steaming pile of imbecilic lefty shit.
FOAD, asshole.
Harris is far more frugal
Oh wow!
She is associated with Act Blue so also a conservative.
That only applies to creatures trying to assassinate OrangeMan.
That's right, thanks to some of the BlueAnon commentators here I learned that Act Blue donations, Democratic party donations, and assassination attempts against Donald Trumpskin, are actually far-right conservative things.
Show us on the Harris doll where she forced you to touch her.
You’re a fucking lying idiot. This country should be cleansed of your kind.
The Democratic Party is big into MMT. So I guess Harris has an easy answer for debt problems: "Deficits don't matter!"
Easy peasy.
The Democratic Party is big into MMT.
You're full of shit.
You’re full of shit.
Remember when you described the Benghazi incident this way:
“Hil-Dog has four embassy officials killed in terrorist attack”
You’re one of the leaders of this sites' full-of-shit clique.
The Democratic party IS modern monetary theory, and anyone claiming otherwise is a poor liar.
You clearly know less than nothing about both the Democratic Party and MMT.
Nah, you’re the liar here, you child raping cunt.
You’re full of minor urges.
Don't forget her 5T in new taxes.
AOC on pay for “we just pay for it”
He should have blamed Democrats.
I've got one better. He should have said "Reason what? Never heard of it" and given the Jacket the brushoff.
Hey Sarckes, what's your idea for reducing the deficit or eliminating the debt? Right now the US owes more than has ever been owed by anyone at any time in human history. There is absolutely no fucking way that it will ever be able to get paid off. So what's your solution?
Maybe you can share it with Emanuel Trumpstien.
I would eliminate the deficit by freezing the federal budget until revenue, which will increase with inflation, catches up.
As far as the debt goes, I don’t have an answer. I don’t think it’s mathematically possible to pay it off. A million is a thousand thousands, and a trillion is a million millions. The numbers are mind boggling.
However if the deficit is eliminated, then debt maintenance will become a smaller and smaller portion of a budget that increases with inflation. Kind of like how a mortgage payment becomes a smaller portion of total income over time. Maybe dedicate a fixed percentage of the budget to debt maintenance and debt reduction. As the amount of that fixed percentage increases with total revenue, so will the portion going to debt reduction.
None of that matters though, because politicians get elected by promising to give away free shit and not touch entitlements. As long as that's who the voters choose, nothing will change.
This is an example of a comment that will be ignored and never bookmarked by my hate club. It goes against the narrative about me, therefore it doesn’t exist.
Some off the cuff facetious or sarcastic remark will be bookmarked and posted without a link as what I really mean, but this one doesn't exist.
It is a comment in opposition to your other comments where you call for tax increases. Yes.
You seem to pick and choose where you want taxes and where you pretend you don't.
Article discussing deficits hits between Kamala and Trump plans? Taxes good because it makes Trump look bad. Someone mentions Trumps attempts to cut spending, can't be done without raising taxes.
You seem to change stances based on who you are arguing about. Weird.
It is a comment in opposition to your other comments where you call for tax increases. Yes.
You mean when I said spending increases without taxes to pay for them are irresponsible?
Check off box where Jesse cherry picks, takes things out of context, and lies.
You seem to pick and choose where you want taxes and where you pretend you don’t.
Coming from a guy who denies that tariffs are taxes, that's a joke.
Article discussing deficits hits between Kamala and Trump plans? Taxes good because it makes Trump look bad. Someone mentions Trumps attempts to cut spending, can’t be done without raising taxes.
Flailing against the voices in your head, and losing.
You seem to change stances based on who you are arguing about. Weird.
Projection for the win!
Where are my comments you say make me a hypocrite?
You willing to show them with links so people can see right through your transparent lies?
I didn't think so.
You're only impressing a Canadian, a fan of ICP, and a few mental midgets. But I repeat myself.
He doesn’t care about anything other than attacking Trump, and getting blackout drunk.
I'm going to vote for whoever will reduce government meddling in my life and cut spending, which really go hand in hand. Which candidate do you think will do that? The choice is obvious and has nothing to do with Rs and Ds.
To anyone reading this, sarcasmic the 'one true libertarian', was excommunicated from the glibertarian group et al, who used to control this comment section. Some of those folks still comment/lurk here. Sarc relies on none of you knowing just how much of a dishonest statist apologist he has always been.
This is weird. You've been demanding new taxes for months. Even have the links.
Liar claims to have links, but will never post them because context defeats his dishonest argument.
You’re liar, you drunk bitch. You spew these lies all day, every day. Whereas I’ve never seen Jesse lie.
You need to go.
Which was what the GOP Congress did, arguably more by accident than design, by not passing a regular budget under the Obama adminstration.
Continuing resolutions, what passes for budgets these days by both parties, rely on baseline budgeting. That means if they want their budget increased by 10%, and it's only increased by 7%, then it's counted as a 3% decrease.
The COVID Payroll Prtotection Program passed the House 415-3 and the Senate 92-7, damn near unanimously. Why is that more on Trump than on the leadership of the Congress? At the very least, it implicates virtually the entire federal political establishment, including Harris, who was a Senator at the time.
Shoukd not Congress bear most of the responsibility for that bill? Are we supposed to endorse the notion of the Imperial Presidency if we can cudgel so eone we do not like? If Trump had opposed it, that would have been a completely futile gesture.
You say that like Fatass Grifter and Mitch McConnell were from different parties. In reality they were in cahoots.
I know that defies logic to a Trump Cultist.
Face it. Trump has never given a fuck about fiscal responsibility.
I am saying that almost all the elected office holders at the time, Democrat and GOP (remember Pelosi was Speaker of the House), thought that bill must pass at that time, which was one of the reasons it was terrible and corrupt as it was hastily done and I'll thought out. It was also, ostensibly, to mitigate shutting down the country,which was also a bipartisan decision.
I am saying that almost all the elected office holders at the time,
Include Trump and you are correct.
Your tone (and what others like ML, Jesse, and the idiot T2000? say) is that Trump somehow resisted the CARES Act.
Unfortunately we (taxpayers) were robbed by both parties in tandem. And Donnie proudly signed and looted from the top.
And Senator Kamala Harris voted for the bill.
So, if you are taken as correct, this election is a choice between two candidates who supported that terrible piece of legislation. What is a voter to decide on this? Harris is certainly no better than Trump on it.
No mean tweets! And shrike perceives her as being supportive of legalizing his child rapes.
turd, the ass-wipe of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Hey Pluggo. Maybe stop lying and pretending that Pelosi and Schumer didn’t conceive, write, lobby for, promote, vote for, and pass the Cares Act, and other people might more readily acknowledge that Emanuel Trumpstien shouldn’t have signed it.
Q and they wanted even more money. Something Shreek will never mention.
You know, HARRIS also supported it.
Just sayin'.
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
The fact is that he didn't oppose it. And I see no reason to believe that he didn't actually support it as opposed to simply letting it happen because it had so much support.
No, Trump couldn't have stopped it. But if he didn't think it was a good idea, he should still have made the symbolic gesture and people like me would have a little more confidence that he actually cares about government spending levels at all. As far as I can see, he's a big government, big spending kind of politician, albeit to a less insane degree than the Democrats are.
As I recall, Trump was lukewarm on shutting down the economy, which that bill was supposed to mitigate. He got captivated mercilessly for it as caring about money more than people's lives. Even if he did oppose it, why spend political capital on a useless gesture, that would not change anything?
Shrike, JeffSarc, and the other traitors here would have mercilessly attacked him just the same.
At the time Trump was also campaigning on opening the economy back up to much opposition from media and governors.
The spending after the initial one he was actually against signing, as he states at the time.
Symbolic gestures are largely meaningless. And the way media was already harassing him was a net negative symbolic message.
Even on the following bills he openly said being against he was attacked by media.
But this entire distraction from ignoring the role of Congress is honestly one of the biggest issues of current governance. When Paul Ryan caved to Obama and signed spending bills after shut downs, some of us rightfully blamed Paul Ryan.
You still have people like shrike blaming W for FY09 despite Pelosi and Reid kicking the can until Obama signed.
At some point the financial bills need to be the responsibility of Congress for blame or spending will not be reduced. This distraction to primarily blame Trump is largely done to distract from congressional blame. See who the biggest pushers of it was Trumps fault narrative is here.
Too wordy for a kiss-ass Cultist.
turd, the TDS-addled ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Too brief for a pederastic DNC 50 center wannabe.
Well, I'm pretty rigid on the covid response stuff. Anyone who wasn't clearly and consistently against the authoritarian policies and the insane spending needs to be punished severely. That's my position and I'm sticking to it. Being lukewarm on shutting down the economy was not good enough. He needed to be forcefully and unequivocally against it.
I agree. Trump sucks when it comes to cutting spending. He's not going to propose any significant cuts. I'm still voting for him, though, as Kamala and the Dems will be even that much worse than Trump. Look at what the Dem controlled House and Senate, with Kamala as the tie-breaker, did, with Joe Biden signing into law, when they controlled both houses and the Presidency and Vice Presidency.
If Manchin/Sinema were replaced by regular Dems who would go along with all of the insanity, we'd have an even worse economy. Also, they would have pushed through packing the Supreme Court and possibly statehood for DC and maybe Puerto Rico to make it even harder to unseat a Dem majority in the Senate henceforth.
The promises to pack the Supreme Court and add statehood for DC and PR are what convinced me to vote for Trump in 2020 (voted for Johnson in 2016). If the Dems can get the votes for it, they WILL do it in 2025. IF a Trump presidency even just delays it for four years, I'll take it.
I agree (though I'm probably not going to vote). Trump is definitely the less bad option. That doesn't mean I won't keep judging him by the standards I think are appropriate.
Trump is a shameless self-promoting carnival barker with a lot of bad ideas, but if people don’t vote for him then the demons of hell will finish their destruction of the west and people one thousand years from now will morn what could have been.
Not picking a side isn’t an option. RFK realized this, Greenwald realized this, Tulsi realized this. Trump isn’t their dream date but the only other option is the apocalypse.
the only other option is the apocalypse
This is what both teams do - they sell fear and try to scare you into voting for them, with outrageous hyperbole, in order to distract you from correctly noting how awful their candidates and their ideas are.
Plus, they never have to defend their ideas on the merits (or lack thereof) if all they have to do is frighten you.
Which is easier?
1. "Vote for me and I will implement this detailed plan for how to get spending under control."
2. "Vote for me because OTHERWISE IF THEY WIN THE NATION IS FINISHED"
Don't let them get away with their bad faith garbage. Don't let them distract you from how terrible they both are.
My one issue is blaming Trump again for not cutting spending. One of his first directives when he got in office was to order all federal departments to cut spending by 10% . The problem is 2 fold. One is that he can't cut spending without Congress. This is based on the lmpoundment Act act of 74.
https://www.gao.gov/products/095406
The second is an OPM guidance change under Obama that changed appropriation language from May spend to Shall spend. This change means departments need to spend appropriated dollars. Vivek has talked about this a lot.
These are congressional issues that need to be fixed. Again Congress should be the one called out primarily for spending instead of using the executive as a way to distract voters from the issues of spending.
I also blame Congress. It's not mutually exclusive.
If he signed the CARES Act because it would have been political suicide to veto it, he still shares responsibility with Congress for it passing. He even played into the political aspect of it by insisting his signature was on the checks as big as possible. I get it, he was trying to win the crazy 2020 election and would have been crucified for vetoing it.
But that's why I don't think he's sincere when he talks about cutting the deficit and shrinking the debt. He's certainly better than Kamala, and what Kamala with a Dem Congress will do. But he knows he needs to win to become 47, and will say a lot of platitudes to make that happen. That's standard fare, unfortunately, for almost all politicians.
Gone are the days when I will vote L or not vote because I find the R candidate to be lacking. The pre-2020 version of myself would probably be abstaining from voting or voting L, but the stakes are too high. The Dems will do what I mention above if they have the votes. I used to laugh at everyone saying each election that it was the most important ever, but this election probably is. The American public has not only tolerated violations of rights (speech, religion, movement, and property that government leaders did during COVID), but sometimes even embraced it. This is the end of our republic if it's not stopped.
I expect Trump, if he wins and is allowed to serve, to be a disappointment in his 2nd term. But it will certainly be better than letting this now quick descent into madness continue unabated.
I expect Trump, if he wins and is allowed to serve, to be a disappointment in his 2nd term.
if you vote for a disappointment, you will continue to be disappointed.
It beats voting for your neo Marxist friends and the horrors they will bring. Why would anyone ever vote for you filth?
I expect to be disappointed by anyone on the ballot. It's just a matter of how much disappointment do I expect.
I’d prefer the guy demanding shit opens up than any of the assholes attacking him for the virus and governor actions.
It is strange blaming him for basically a state caused economic shut down. The usual suspects call him an authoritarian and were equally outraged when he practiced federalism during covid.
So would I. I'm just not going to hold back from criticizing him because I prefer him to the alternative. I judge only based on what I think the right thing to do would be. I'm not doing political activism, I'm just saying what I think of the situation and people involved.
Welcome to Reason comments, where a lengthy excuse is needed to avoid the reflexive, binary thinking, YOU CRITICIZED TRUMP THAT MEANS YOU DEFEND HARRIS DEFEND THIS YOU DEMOCRAT LEFTIST LEFTHANDED MARXIST LEFTIST LEFTIST AAAUUUGGHH!
No one here has accused Zeb of being a DEMOCRAT LEFTIST, or of defending Harris.
It sounds as though you are trying to create a FALSE BINARY to dismiss criticism of you, Sarc.
He has to put so much nuance into his comments. If he said something that wasn’t carefully calculated to not offend you, he’d be a pariah like me.
Sorry Zeb, not meaning to put attention on you.
What are you talking about? He and I basically said the same things (regarding Trump and his failures). The difference is that I will still vote for Trump as the least bad option that can actually win. Up until 2020, I was where Zeb is now.
For all your talk about how everyone here are Trump cultists, I've read quite a few criticisms of Trump, even among those who will support him in the election. Some of us will still vote for him, some won't.
If you can't understand how coming into every comment thread to shit it up with the same tired, old schtick each day makes people dislike you, I don't know what to tell you.
He’s just drunk, and raving like a little bitch.
Nope. Just you and Jeffy, Shillcasmic.
I’m all for wiping out the democrats and the RINOs. Pack them into shipping containers and send them to Somalia, Antarctica, or some other equally inhospitable place.
He deserves blame for his actions. Here's a few reasons:
1. Steve Mnuchin, his Sec of Treasury, negotiated the deal.
2. He threw his weight behind it as leader of the Republican party. Going so far as to threaten his fellow Rs with primary challenges if they got out of line.
3. He lied to American people stating, "this will deliver urgently needed relief to our nation's families, workers and businesses".
If Trump had opposed it, that would have been a completely futile gesture.
See number 2. If he as the leader of the Republican party had come out against it, more votes may have switch. We don't know that. All we know is he gave away trillions to the Swamp when it mattered most without even a fight.
All correct but add that Donnie was trying to save his reelection effort. He would have spent anything to insure reelection.
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a TDS-addled lying pile of lefty shit.
You mean how you democrats will do anything to hold on to power? It really comes down to you and your treasonous friends. We could be much more discriminating if the alternative wasn’t a full on neo Marxist. So really, we’re all better off if you and your fellow travelers are deposited into landfills, like rotten garbage,
And you are giving Harris a pass, on legislation she voted for and pushed to make sure minority owned businesses git preferential treatment, why?
Nope. I am more than capable of blaming Harris for what she voted for. She just wasn’t part of the discussion.
Since you bring her up, I’d say her largest sin to date is her vote, breaking the tie, for the Inflation Reduction Act. That bill is an abomination. Couple that with her Cares Act(s) votes and she is terrible on spending as well.
"She just wasn’t part of the discussion."
And that is my objection to Gillespie bringing that up, as again, 98% of the entire class of federal elected officeholders let that thing pass, you cannot leave the rest of them out of the discussion.
This.
You can when the politician in question is on hand to answer. Why would he ask Trump about anyone else's role?
And your objection was that Trump holds little to no responsibility for the federal covid response. I beg to differ.
Yes, Congress bears most of the responsibility. BUT ...
* Trump should have vetoed it and made Congress bear 100% responsibility.
* He didn't disclaim any responsibility this time or ever, and he keeps on proposing more tax favors and more spending.
BUT BUT ...
Anyone who think Harris will spend less and have lower deficits is an idiot disguised as a moron.
There is absolutely no politician who could have won the presidency who would have vetoed that legislation with 98% of Congress voting "Aye". Political gamesmanship just does not work that way. And under the climate in the moment, anyone who did that would have made himself incredibly unpopular with the public. You are forgetting just how irrational politics was in 2020.
You would think with all of us commenting on a political blog day in and day out that most people would understand that. I mean, I don't like that he supported it, but I understand the political reasoning behind it.
I'm not forgetting anything. He would have lost nothing from putting Congress on the spot, and his reputation would have gained a little backbone. The partisan voters were already entrenched. The fence sitters would have applauded.
Sometimes you need to oppose things on a purely moral basis.
Sometimes you have to kiss a toad if it'll stop the devil. There's nothing moral about letting the Democrats win this time.
And Trump is not the politician to do that.
The only ones who I can think of who might are the Pauls, and I fear they are considered, as far as the Presidency goes, unelectable weirdos. I wish that was not so, but I think it is true.
Even The Hair quivers in the presence of The Jacket.
Is The Jacket bulletproof? The hair has been known to quiver as bullets pass by.
In just four years, Donald Trump signed legislation that increased future debt by $7.8 trillion, more than George W. Bush and Barack Obama managed in eight years apiece. We're headed for an economic catastrophe.
According to the Trump Cult, the evil witch Nancy Pelosi cast a spell on Donnie and Mitch and turned the GOP into a Big Spending Nanny State against their will despite their ability to overrule the House on any legislation.
According to Reason, your original account got banned for posting links to illegal child content.
But your bestest buddy Dick Cheney said deficits don't matter, so what are you complaining about, you hicklib pederast?
According to the non ignorant here, we know where spending originates. Your goal, as well as sarcs, is to deflect blame from Congress. Full stop.
Projection from someone who dedicates hours and hours a day to deflecting anything from Trump and the GOP using binary thinking, fallacies, gaslighting and lies.
Count: 7
Incorrect use: 6
Nonsensical use: 1
Hilarious you were called out in that thread as having another word you'd force into conversations incorrectly and you can't stop.
Sarcles is as spectacularly ignorant and idiotic as he is spectacularly drunk.
Gaslighting liar impresses trolls.
That's not what "gas lighting" means either, you terrific retard.
I'm not even going to try to count all his incorrect use of fallacies.
The binary one was predicted and come to pass.
Gaslighter says accuser of gaslighting doesn't know what gaslighting means. Classic.
You don’t. You really are a drunk, ignorant retard. No wonder you’re a far left democrat.
Now I'm curious as to whether this retard even knows what "classic" means.
turd, the TDS-addled ass-wipe of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Is your hope, in repeating this nonsense every day, that you are going to trick newer users or something? I just don't understand why you bring it up so often despite being entirely wrong.
Unfortunately Congress still wants to double the debt or more correctly doesn't give a shit if they do.
Trump would restore a lot of faith if he'd just admit it was a massive mistake on the Republican side to back a Democrat written bill.
Guess that's why we call them RINO'S (Republican in name-only). Or a RINO-Move.
Simple. His supporters were going to eliminate much of his deficit, but COVID-19 killed them.
That was also why you lost the election, Mr. President.
The Democrats bubbled the issue of the vaccine!
The horror. Are you aware the democrats don't even take questions? Stfu.
"Trump Dodged My Question About the Federal Debt."
So, when is Mr. Gillispie going ask Comrade Kamala about the debt, or are we asking for the earth, moon and stars here?
When he asks how his toilet scrubbers support themselves with housing, water, healthcare, food, language interpretation lessons (what we call education), etc.
They won’t let him within 50 feet of her.
You mean a transplant into the Republican party by a Democrat from the 1990's isn't a conservative and doesn't think reducing the federal deficit matters all that much?
So shocking!
But seriously, most of the Republican party and none in the Democrat party seem at all concerned with the deficit which brings them in line with the majority of the electorate.
Why should politicians care about deficit spending when the people who elect them specifically elect people who are going to give them the most transfer payments possible?
In essence, you're asking for politicians to go against the will of the people and stop giving away 'free money' to those groups. That is not how democratic governments work. Perhaps it should be, but here in reality people want something for nothing.
In fact, this is one of the fatal flaws of democratic institutions and we're seeing the bedrock of the Republic crumble to the applause of the masses. Make of that what you will.
Despite the Reason’s staff party line that the GOP is doing nothing about Social Security and MediCare, the Democrat in a local congressional race is hammering the Republican for trying to severely cut old folk’s SS and MediCare payments. How much of those accusations are true, I am not sure, but the Democrat in the race certainly thinks it is a winning issue for him that appeals to the voters.
The Reason writers criticize the GOP for not immolating themselves on fiscal issues, while not really holding the Democrats to any kind of criticism at all.
The Reason writers criticize the GOP for not immolating themselves on fiscal issues, while not really holding the Democrats to any kind of criticism at all.
My charitable take (which I'm not sure they deserve at this point) on that would be that it goes without saying that the Democrats are awful on fiscal issues, while the GOP at least sometimes pretends to care about spending rates.
The problem with "it goes without saying" is that criticism does not get said and you do not hold that side responsible for their wrongs.
Look what happens when republicans even try, the only solution to the problem is to get rid of the democrats, with extreme prejudice.
I'd like to believe its because they see the Democrats as a lost cause, so why bother, but I think it has more to do with Republicans being way easier to beat up on because they love to let the perfect be the enemy of the good (enough).
Maybe it's just my biases showing through though.
But seriously, most of the Republican party and none in the Democrat party seem at all concerned with the deficit which brings them in line with the majority of the electorate.
It should be noted that this is, in no real way, limited to the GOP/DNC.
Bill Weld wasn't going to do dick about spending. Chase Oliver and Jo Jorgensen were pretty explicit about where they were going to be soft on social causes/spending. Even if you iron manned them all in favor of no new spending or spending cuts, the idea that any one of them wouldn't wind up as on-term/one-off 'Read my lips' candidates is pretty naive.
I'd agree it has absolutely nothing to do with political parties and everything to do with people's changing expectations about what they think government 'should' be doing. There are those in the Democrat and Republican parties who think the government should be making most of our decisions for us, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice that Democrats are consistently worse on that front. Few Republicans even pay it lip service, although there are a few who are still actually serious about it even though it'll never go anywhere until it's forced on us by fiscal reality.
Then, once that reality happens, I suspect we'll see a few politicians swinging from lamp posts.
People are profoundly ignorant about the purpose and function of our system of government, which is probably not a coincidence as education is a 'government service' these days. People get, what, one half-semester of civics in high school? That really isn't enough, and it's being taught by the wrong people (that being government employees with a stake in the game).
The real story here is Nick Gillespie was able to ask Trump a question.
Dodge a question about the federal debt, reluctantly and strategically chose a different answer than the one Nick wanted, toe-may-toe/toe-mah-toe.
Let him try that with Harris. He would likely be detained and beaten by her SS detail for not knowing his place. If he would even bother to try.
That would be entirely unnecessary. Harris would never make herself available to such scrutiny.
Did emo Fonzie dodge Trump’s attempt to grab him by the pussy?
Well, at least they used the most flattering still photo of Trump they could find.
goddam can we just get the fucking communists out of the way first?
Precisely.
Thank you. I’ve been saying that here for over a decade now. It’s obvious that nothing gets fixed while Marxist safe allowed to run free in this country. There’s on,y three things that work with them
1. Exile
2. Prison
3. Execution
We mostly have to use 1 and 2, because most of the public does not yet have the stomach to use 3 as much as it really should be. As the only good commie, is a dead commie.
No.
also what did Nick ask KH?
Probably a request for a cabinet position, based on this nonsense.
What designer she was wearing?
You get one of two choices there, Nicky baby, or an irrelevant protest vote.
Trump may very well have increased the debt a lot. The question is "Who will increase it more in the next four years?" Trump has decreased Government power and spending. Obama, Biden and by reference, Kamel-toe, never have.
Keep throwing rocks so you can be sure to have something to bitch about more in the future. This article is just spiteful glee, or yet another droning of a totalitarian.
I'll take Spiteful Glee for $600, Alex.
My my, how expectations have been lowered.
2016: “Finally, we will have someone who will drain the swamp!”
2024: “Well, he will only raise the debt by $4 trillion instead of $5 trillion! That’s a good enough reason for me to vote for him!”
If you continue to support terrible candidates, you will continue to get terrible results. There is a way out, and it starts with not endorsing the corrupt and hopeless two-party system. Don’t vote for either one.
fun with apples & oranges!
It’s obvious your fellow travelers in Congress and their RINO collaborators will never allow the budget to be cut. That won’t happen until you and your friends ar elite down like the rabid unclean abominations you are.
I see Nick has upset the MAGAts.
Sounds like a good time for Team Blue Desperate to hawk student loan forgiveness. Or maybe just hand a blank check over to Ukraine, along with the keys to the F-15ex. Hey, isn't there some InFrAsTrUcTuRe that needs addressing? And maybe a trillion dollars or so to fight the weather. Hey, I know a guy who murdered his infant daughter who wants to call himself Sally now that he's in jail. Obviously the State should pay for his full gender transition! Along with anyone else's - hey illegal border jumping criminals, you want to get in on this?? No? Well, at least let's get you a down-payment on your brand new home!
Yes. Trump never met a spending bill he couldn't wait to pen his name to. That's because he's a Democrat, and has been all his life. We all know this (though MAGA seems to turning a blind eye). But to pretend like this is somehow more damnable than the Marxist Left borrowing/spending habits is partisan narratives by those who either want to gaslight or aren't operating in reality.
It's like a woman I recently met who truly believed that most abortions were on already-dead fetuses that were immediately jeopardizing the mother's life. She refused to hear any evidence to the contrary that the extreme majority are elective and done for sake of convenience.
This is how bubbled and echo-chambered the left has become. Like this whole "Trump is racist" narrative:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCppC4Ir5lw
"Wait, you don't want to see the examples?"
No, they don't. Facts are like kryptonite to these jackoffs. They will literally run from them rather than risk bursting that narrative bubble of theirs.
Trump borrowed/spent ≠ progressives are therefore much better/reliable on the subject (let alone don't do it far, far worse and more frivolously and pointlessly and criminally).
You don't hate journalists enough. You think you do, but you don't.
It is extremely unfortunate but a fact of today - Any detailed explanation of how to fix the debt/deficit that's worth a damn (cutting and clawing back spending and entitlements) will lose you the election.
One can only hope that candidate politicians will refuse to give details, then implement cuts on spending and entitlements once in office.
The only other viable solutions are:
1) A new political party that runs on cutting debt and deficit, no other baggage, and is voted in to a significant portion of the government.
2) A law or amendment that bars voting rights to anyone who chronically and primarily survives on government handouts. Then akin to #1
Outside of all this, we're pretty much screwed - question is, how long can we stretch out the time before we are screwed.
I don't think we're going to make it to the end of the year.
It's a good question and Trump should answer it.
Now ask the same question of Vice President Kamala Harris.
While you are at is as these former presidents as well.
Joe Biden (Likely a puppet so included in the list)
Donald Trump (Ask him again)
Barack Obama
George W. Bush
Bill Clinton
Jimmy Carter (Probably too old)
Trump rejected your question? Hmm, he's a better judge of character than I thought.