Trump: U.S. can never default because it prints money

[Cleaner44]

( i believe you'll find that 'the federal reserve' uses the bonds it gets for nothing as collateral to 'secure an issue of federal reserve notes/the little green rectangles)

Yes, I know. I was just having fun with our resident... factbot. Oddly his facts as nearly always incomplete and/or inaccurate.

 

[acptulsa]

Maybe Justin should get back to kissing up to the guy he endorsed. Good 'ol Ted "Trans Pacific Partnership/North American Union" Cruz.

Maybe dead horses should be left unbeaten.

If fans of the presumptive nominee really can't find anything nice to say about their boy except, 'He's better than some guy who dropped out already,' maybe they should refrain from talking about him at all.

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

At least Trump throws the truth about there more than the other guys. He pretty much says that we are bankrupt and have to print money to prop this big scheme up. But if you were expecting him to be some big departure from the Keynesian consensus from him, you're going to be disappointed.

 

[acptulsa]

At least Trump throws the truth about there more than the other guys.

More than what 'other guys'? He might be roughly as honest (or rather as dishonest) as the woman in the race. But the other guys still in this race are, to a man, more honest than he is. I haven't, for example, seen Gary Johnson flip flop on or duck a question in a decade and a half.

He pretty much says that we are bankrupt and have to print money to prop this big scheme up. But if you were expecting him to be some big departure from the Keynesian consensus from him, you're going to be disappointed.

Being a populist who seems proud of his ability to communicate with the lowest common denominator, one would think he'd be so kind as to let people know what they'll be going through while he's busy paying off the debt by crashing the currency. But I haven't heard him raise the spectre of million dollar loaves of bread even once.

That ain't honesty, and it's miles and miles away from forthrightness.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Maybe dead horses should be left unbeaten.

Indeed and exactly the advice that those twisting Trump's words in the Chuck Todd interview should take. Since they were proven wrong in their assertions.

If fans of the presumptive nominee really can't find anything nice to say about their boy except, 'He's better than some guy who dropped out already,' maybe they should refrain from talking about him at all.

We aren't supposed to be promoting him here. You remember, I'm sure. So, that is left when posters lie about his positions, because we are allowed to correct people when they are being dishonest or otherwise misstating his positions. Interestingly enough, the biggest haters here are the ones who provide the most opportunity. Funny how that works, eh?

 

[acptulsa]

So, that is left when posters lie about his positions, because we are allowed to correct people when they are being dishonest or otherwise misstating his positions.

There's a difference between correcting misstatements or misinformation and attacking Justin Amash and maligning Cruz. The fact that Cruz sucks and Amash might have been wiser to leave this presidential race alone has no reflection whatsoever on anyone's comments about Trump.

So how is this comment even slightly relevant to what I said, and how was the comment on Cruz and the TPP even slightly a comment on the thread subject--or, for that matter, how was it a substantive rebuttal of Amash's tweet?

No, what we saw there was an attempt to discredit Amash via guilt by association--and utilizing a very loose association to boot. And there is no way anyone is going to buy the explanation that it was some kind of substantive debate that addressed the facts of the issue.

 

[LibertyEagle]

There's a difference between correcting misstatements or misinformation and attacking Justin Amash and maligning Cruz. The fact that Cruz sucks and Amash might have been wiser to leave this presidential race alone has no reflection whatsoever on anyone's comments about Trump.

So how is this comment even slightly relevant to what I said, and how was the comment on Cruz and the TPP even slightly a comment on the thread subject--or, for that matter, how was it a substantive rebuttal of Amash's tweet?

No, what we saw there was an attempt to discredit Amash via guilt by association--and utilizing a very loose association to boot. And there is no way anyone is going to buy the explanation that it was some kind of substantive debate that addressed the facts of the issue.

It's called Justin Amash's hypocrisy and it is glaring.

 

[acptulsa]

It's called Justin Amash's hypocrisy and it is glaring.

It seems to be a good year for glaring hypocrisy. The stuff is growing wild all over the country this spring.

 

[Bossobass]

Yeah, Greenspan and others have said it. It's just so much more controversial when a candidate or sitting official admits it publicly. The first rule of fiat money printing is to not talk about money printing.

Greenspan told RP in the House on one occasion in answer to RP's query that "We can absolutely guarantee your Social Security payment, no matter what. We just can't guarantee what it will buy."

Why is it worse for a candidate for pres to bring this to the light of day than it was for RP to put it into the public record on numerous occasions from 1997-2012?

I'm not embarassed. I'm curious. I'm curious as to what their defense will be. Will it be:

1) Ignore the thread and hope the facts get forgotten
2) Post a link to the video and say "This was taken out of context" even though the full context won't change a think of what Trump actually said
3) Say "quit doing Hillary's research for her"
4) Say "But Ted Cruz missed the audit the fed vote"
5) Say "But Ted Cruz' dad killed JFK. Alex Jones, Wayne Madsen and the National Inquirer said so."

This isn't sad. It's funny. Damn funny. On November 9th (or whatever day is the day after election day) I will be happy because either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton will have lost and I despise them both equally.

Yeah, this^^ is what's funny, jm.

Seriously. Oh noes, I are a stooped Trump supporter and now I are afraid of his interview distortions and everthink!

Or, maybe Trump should suggest negotiating the treasuries down to zero… without a negotiation?

Ron Paul recently made (another) splash among economic pundits with his suggestion that the Treasury simply cancel the $1.6 trillion in its debt held by the Federal Reserve.

Paul argues that this debt cancellation is acceptable because the Fed just printed up the money out of thin air to buy the bonds in the first place. In other words, it's not as if the Treasury would be reneging on its debts held by hardworking, frugal investors.

Treasuries now held by the FED is $2.5 trillion, up nearly a trillion from RP's suggested "negotiation".

The only people who shriek and flail arms over such a preposterous idea as renegotiating the Jupiter-sized US debt… are the NYT and Clinton and Chinese officials and… well, you.

 

[jmdrake]

Yeah, this^^ is what's funny, jm.

Seriously. Oh noes, I are a stooped Trump supporter and now I are afraid of his interview distortions and everthink!

Yep. You picked option #2. Claim, without merit, that somehow Trump's critics are "distorting" what he's saying when they aren't. For the record I don't think you're stupid. Just deparate.

Or, maybe Trump should suggest negotiating the treasuries down to zero… without a negotiation?

Or maybe Trump could be a real man and suggest the U.S. government quit living beyond its means? Nah. That won't happen.

 

[CPUd]

 

[Bossobass]

Yep. You picked option #2. Claim, without merit, that somehow Trump's critics are "distorting" what he's saying when they aren't. For the record I don't think you're stupid. Just deparate.



Or maybe Trump could be a real man and suggest the U.S. government quit living beyond its means? Nah. That won't happen.

So, you're the go-to guy for what Trump says, means and should say?

I don't think your stupid. Just not that guy.

 

[jmdrake]

So, you're the go-to guy for what Trump says, means and should say?

I don't think your stupid. Just not that guy.

Donald Trump is that guy. You just don't believe him when he says stuff that you don't think he should say.