Trump tells Reason Mag he plans to grow his way out of the debt

[Matt Collins]

https://youtu.be/a7Ntsf5REjw

[PAF]

Don't vote for the "other side", my spending is the biggest fraud in an entire generation and the best in U.S. History!!!

Woman attendee: Thank you Trump!


He even censored Nick by walking out after a valid question

[Brian4Liberty]

Yeah, Trump is not a fiscal conservative. He is not even fiscally responsible. Of course, his plan is "growth". He has always been in the Kudlow camp of growth and "king dollar".

And he can be that way because the alternative is worse.

[CaptUSA]

Cool, Nick. Now do Kamala.


Yes, we know we're $#@!ed regardless of who becomes the debt emperor or emperess. Which one is more likely to restrict speech, get us into new wars, suspend the constitution, or start WWIII?

[PAF]

Yeah, Trump is not a fiscal conservative. He is not even fiscally responsible. Of course, his plan is "growth". He has always been in the Kudlow camp of growth and "king dollar".

And he can be that way because the alternative is worse.

Based on what data/alternate universe?


It is known that the Police-State always expands under republican leadership [take TSA, OWS, etc. for a couple of examples out of many]. Nixon (R) took us off of the gold standard '71.

Ron Paul: "Those tempted to blame the increases on President Biden, the Democratic Congress, or the Covid-related spending spree should consider the debt increase by around $1 Trillion a year in 2017, and 2018, years when the Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress."

Without money [or at least a whole lot less of it], less things would be implemented/carried out.

by Ron Paul

The Penn Wharton Budget Model, a think tank headquartered at the University of Pennsylvania, recently released a study claiming former President Donald Trump’s economic plans would add about four trillion dollars to the national deficit over ten years while Vice President Kamala Harris’s economic plans would add about two trillion dollars.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Facing-America

[Brian4Liberty]

Based on what data/alternate universe?


It is known that the Police-State always expands under republican leadership [take TSA, OWS, etc. for a couple of examples out of many]. Nixon (R) took us off of the gold standard '71.

Ron Paul: "Those tempted to blame the increases on President Biden, the Democratic Congress, or the Covid-related spending spree should consider the debt increase by around $1 Trillion a year in 2017, and 2018, years when the Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress."

Without money [or at least a whole lot less of it], less things would be implemented/carried out.

by Ron Paul

The Penn Wharton Budget Model, a think tank headquartered at the University of Pennsylvania, recently released a study claiming former President Donald Trump’s economic plans would add about four trillion dollars to the national deficit over ten years while Vice President Kamala Harris’s economic plans would add about two trillion dollars.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Facing-America

Based on the "alternative reality" that this study (i.e. attempt to predict the future) is talking about projected deficits. Deficits are different than spending. Revenue minus spending equals surplus or deficit if a negative number.

Trump has said he will cut taxes, thus possibly reducing revenue. But according to the supply-side pro-growth people like Kudlow and Trump, reducing taxing can actually lead to increased revenue due to growth and productivity. Experience says this does work to a certain extent. Trump's problem is that he doesn't want to cut spending, the other side of the equation.

Harris on the other hand intends to dramatically increases taxes (and possibly increasing revenue). And she wants to increase spending.

Thus, on paper, the study gives those deficit numbers. In reality, many factors play into that "calculation" in real time.

Increase taxes? People will try to avoid taxes. They will reduce productivity if they have to. They will search for more tax shelters. The ultra-wealthy will have loopholes built in just for themselves when they write the tax code proposals for their Kamala puppet.

You want more taxes and government spending? Then go ahead and vote for Kamala.

[WarriorLiberty]

Yeah, Trump is not a fiscal conservative. He is not even fiscally responsible. Of course, his plan is "growth". He has always been in the Kudlow camp of growth and "king dollar".

And he can be that way because the alternative is worse.

Well supposedly Trump is mostly okish on free speech compared to Harris and her Ilk that want US to become like UK currently..


Arresting people for mean tweets...

[PAF]

Based on the "alternative reality" that this study (i.e. attempt to predict the future) is talking about projected deficits. Deficits are different than spending. Revenue minus spending equals surplus or deficit if a negative number.

Trump has said he will cut taxes, thus possibly reducing revenue. But according to the supply-side pro-growth people like Kudlow and Trump, reducing taxing can actually lead to increased revenue due to growth and productivity. Experience says this does work to a certain extent. Trump's problem is that he doesn't want to cut spending, the other side of the equation.

And that's the key.

Harris on the other hand intends to dramatically increases taxes (and possibly increasing revenue). And she wants to increase spending.

Thus, on paper, the study gives those deficit numbers. In reality, many factors play into that "calculation" in real time.

Increase taxes? People will try to avoid taxes. They will reduce productivity if they have to. They will search for more tax shelters. The ultra-wealthy will have loopholes built in just for themselves when they write the tax code proposals for their Kamala puppet.

You want more taxes and government spending? Then go ahead and vote for Kamala.

Why on earth would I do that?


Go ahead and vote for Trump. I'm sure on top of Operation Warp Speed [renamed Project NexGen under Biden to "distance" themselves], his new National Academy, Stop and Frisk, militarized LEO funded by federal tax dollars and how many more Trillions he signs off on will seem a much better improvement over "gee, now that Trump lost, should I get myself a sex change operation?".


I'm staying home that day. I don't want my offspring to ask me "dad, after standing firm on your principles and the way that you taught me, why did you abandon them and suddenly give Approval/Consent to the Trump/Kamala 2-party duopoly?".


Btw, the site has been running really slow today. Not sure if it's only on my end, or for everybody.

[WarriorLiberty]

And that's the key.





Why on earth would I do that?


Go ahead and vote for Trump. I'm sure on top of Operation Warp Speed [renamed Project NexGen under Biden to "distance" themselves], his new National Academy, Stop and Frisk, militarized LEO funded by federal tax dollars and how many more Trillions he signs off on will seem a much better improvement over "gee, now that Trump lost, should I get myself a sex change operation?".


I'm staying home that day. I don't want my offspring to ask me "dad, after standing firm on your principles and the way that you taught me, why did you abandon them and suddenly give Approval/Consent to the Trump/Kamala 2-party duopoly?".


Btw, the site has been running really slow today. Not sure if it's only on my end, or for everybody.

Same for me..
I thought it was DDOS attack. I thought i didn't have access to the site.

[CaptUSA]

And that's the key.





Why on earth would I do that?


Go ahead and vote for Trump. I'm sure on top of Operation Warp Speed [renamed Project NexGen under Biden to "distance" themselves], his new National Academy, Stop and Frisk, militarized LEO funded by federal tax dollars and how many more Trillions he signs off on will seem a much better improvement over "gee, now that Trump lost, should I get myself a sex change operation?".


I'm staying home that day. I don't want my offspring to ask me "dad, after standing firm on your principles and the way that you taught me, why did you abandon them and suddenly give Approval/Consent to the Trump/Kamala 2-party duopoly?".


Btw, the site has been running really slow today. Not sure if it's only on my end, or for everybody.

Whether you approve or consent, one of these people is going to run the next administration. I understand not voting, but do you have a preference for which administration runs the Executive branch?

And yeah, serious lag on the site.

[Anti Federalist]

The national debt will never be paid.

War, insolvency or Rhodesian-esque inflation are the only outcomes possible.

[PAF]

Whether you approve or consent, one of these people is going to run the next administration. I understand not voting, but do you have a preference for which administration runs the Executive branch?

And yeah, serious lag on the site.

Nope. None at all.

As far as "choosing" between Trump's Police-State Apparatus which will violate each and everybody's Bill of Rights, and other Federalized/Nationalized programs which will never go away once implemented, and Kamala's pay for somebody else's sex change operation who are going to get one anyway, I'll let you guys roll the dice.


Vote hard, sleep comfy

[TheCount]

But according to the supply-side pro-growth people like Kudlow and Trump, reducing taxing can actually lead to increased revenue due to growth and productivity. Experience says this does work to a certain extent.

Except that has never happened.

That's just a line of neocon bull$#@! used to avoid cutting spending.

[acptulsa]

Except that has never happened.

That's just a line of neocon bull$#@! used to avoid cutting spending.

Happened under Coolidge. He made a science of it. That's what made the 1920s roar.

Of course, Coolidge wasn't stupid enough to try to pay off the debt from taxes gained by borrowing and using the money to stimulate the economy. It takes a 21st Century politician to be that incredibly stupid.

[vita3]

Trump has been fiscally IRRESPONSIBLE his entire life.

Tragic he is Republican nominee in 2024.

[Anti Globalist]

Too bad the national debt is going to continue growing.

[CaptUSA]

Nope. None at all.

Ok, so no preference. So why all the vitriol towards those who do have a preference? I mean, it doesn't matter to you, right? Take "voting" out of the equation for a minute - it's a silly thing anyway. Some people have a preference for one over the other, but you have no preference. Typically, people with no preference wouldn't care if other people state their preference.

[jmdrake]

Ok, so no preference. So why all the vitriol towards those who do have a preference? I mean, it doesn't matter to you, right? Take "voting" out of the equation for a minute - it's a silly thing anyway. Some people have a preference for one over the other, but you have no preference. Typically, people with no preference wouldn't care if other people state their preference.

I don't have a problem with people having a preference. My experience is that (typcially) people with a preference more often get angry at those of us with no preference than the other way around. And whenver some of us point out what's wrong with someone's preference we get jumped on with "But you know so and so is so much WORSE right?" I have recently had that experince multiple times when I critize Kamala Harris. Not here because this has become an ideological bubble. The Ron Paul supporters who where mainly here because of Dr. Paul's non interventionism have mostly either moved to the right or have left. But in the "real world" I'm personally more likely to interact with a rabid Kamala Harris supporter than I am a rabid Trump supporter. I find both irritating. But there is hope. Our pastor, who I once heard say "I don't know how anyone who is Christian could vote for Trump" has more recently come to see things my way. His friends and family encouraged him to watch the DNC and he noted how everyone was excited and talking about "joy" and saying that the fate of the world depended upon people making the right "choice." So he decided to go back and watch the RNC and he saw the same excitement and many of the same themes. Then he came to the conclusion that "Really we need to choose Jesus." That was the topic of his sermon. He preached about Jesus healing the man and the pool of Bethesda, which people were so desperate to get in for healing when the water water was "troubled" that they would step over others and even pull them back to get in first, as opposed to looking to Jesus who had healing for everybody. More recently in his pre sermon remarks he talked about seeing a sign at a church that said "If you're black and voting for Trump you are stupid" and he remarked that the sign was wrong and people should be free to do their own investigation and decide on their own who to vote for without any pressure from anyone. That was a breath of fresh air!

[Matt Collins]

Yes lowering taxes and reducing regulation will help economic growth, no doubt. But there needs to be a cut in spending (which there will never be).

[jmdrake]

https://youtu.be/a7Ntsf5REjw

Interesting and very pointed. I had to Google what Trump meant by "liquid gold." Apparently he's talking about America's oil reserves.

https://breakingthenews.net/Article/...rabia/62719330

The problem with that is that Biden is already pumping oil at a record pace.

https://www.vox.com/climate/24098983...uel-renewables

https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA...L/lgpdngrgkpo/

https://theconversation.com/under-bo...y-goals-236859

At some point the price of oil will crash again. That is....unless sources for oil from other places gets squeezed....and all of a sudden the war in Ukraine, the blowing up of the Nord Stream pipeline, and Israel's extreme push for a wider regional war in the middle east makes perfect sense! In Greg Pallast's book [U]Armed Madhouse[/b] he argued that the war in Iraq wasn't about getting Saddam Hussein's oil but rather about stopping Saddam from overproducing oil to keep the price inflated. Damn!

[PAF]

Ok, so no preference. So why all the vitriol towards those who do have a preference? I mean, it doesn't matter to you, right? Take "voting" out of the equation for a minute - it's a silly thing anyway. Some people have a preference for one over the other, but you have no preference. Typically, people with no preference wouldn't care if other people state their preference.

In a community of people, 2 opposing mobsters who hate each other are trying to win power. They each promise a few good things which doesn't really matter, while committing serious crimes against the community.

For some strange reason, the people in the community feel that they must vote for one or the other. Eventually, one of the mobsters wins. Next year, the community is sick and tired of the crimes, so they vote for the other mobster instead.

At a community event, as I listen to other people complain back and forth, I tell them that if the community rejects both mobsters, the mobsters will go away because they have no power over the armed community. Somebody stands up and says "we can't do that, we have to vote for one of them!". For some strange reason, others in the community agree with that person and they continue to vote, while I as an individual suffer no matter which one is in charge.

Do I blame the mobsters who are nothing but opportunists? Or do I blame the people who willfully grant whichever mobster the power to commit crimes against the community?

There comes a time when it is necessary for the mobsters to fear the community, even if that number is only a quarter of the community. And that doesn't happen by promoting/voting for whichever one is perceived to be less bad than the other. It is stoopid people without a brain cell, or lack of a backbone, who make justification for one mobster over the other. I have both the brain cells and the backbone to tell it like it is, and have no need/desire for either mobster to win.

But, YMMV, depending on how many brain cells/backbone you have [or don't].

[CaptUSA]

I don't have a problem with people having a preference.

Yeah, didn't mean to hijack the thread - I'll split it out to explore more deeply.

Go here to continue:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...35#post7256235

[Madison320]

Except that has never happened.

Tax revenues have gone up many times following tax rate cuts. It depends on where you are on the laffer curve.

That's just a line of neocon bull$#@! used to avoid cutting spending.

True. The increased tax revenue from cutting rates doesn't come close to closing the deficits caused by spending.

I'm confused about why you're complaining about it since you're in the neocon camp.

[TheCount]

Tax revenues have gone up many times following tax rate cuts.

Tax revenues have gone up many times following tax hikes, tax cuts, and no tax changes whatsoever. It's almost as though the GDP grows nearly every year.

I'm confused about why you're complaining about it since you're in the neocon camp.

Your confusion explains itself.

[Brian4Liberty]

Except that has never happened.

That's just a line of neocon bull$#@! used to avoid cutting spending.

I am also skeptical of how well it works. And I am also skeptical of govt statistics and studies either way. And of course, I am skeptical of your prounouncement that increased revenue or growth "has never happened" after a tax cut.

Tax revenues have gone up many times following tax rate cuts. It depends on where you are on the laffer curve.

True. The increased tax revenue from cutting rates doesn't come close to closing the deficits caused by spending.
...

Agree, as I said before, it works to a certain extent, depending on many other factors.

And I'm sure that most of us agree that spending is a huge problem, and neither Trump or Harris intend to cut it.

[TheCount]

And of course, I am skeptical of your prounouncement that increased revenue or growth "has never happened" after a tax cut.

Cool.

But we've had several rounds of "cost-neutral" tax cuts. How have they worked out so far?

[unknown]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q6vi528gseA

[Madison320]

Tax revenues have gone up many times following tax hikes, tax cuts, and no tax changes whatsoever. It's almost as though the GDP grows nearly every year.

Although tax revenue is not always going up when you factor in inflation. Anyway there's a point where tax rates get too high and tax revenues fall. If you disagree tell me what tax revenues would be if the rate was 100%.

Lowering tax rates down to at least the peak of the laffer curve is as close to a free lunch in economics as you're going to get.

Your confusion explains itself.

Supporting the idiotic war in Ukraine may not make you a full blown neocon but it sure is a good start.

[oyarde]

The national debt will never be paid.

War, insolvency or Rhodesian-esque inflation are the only outcomes possible.

Or all 3

[TheCount]

Although tax revenue is not always going up when you factor in inflation. Anyway there's a point where tax rates get too high and tax revenues fall. If you disagree tell me what tax revenues would be if the rate was 100%.

Lowering tax rates down to at least the peak of the laffer curve is as close to a free lunch in economics as you're going to get.

What % is peak on the laffer curve?