Trump’s nonsensical claim he can eliminate $19 trillion in debt in eight years

Trump's dumb, but he's not dumb enough to believe that renegotiating some trade deals would increase tax revenues by $19 trillion over 8 years.

...but his worshipful followers are more than dumb enough to buy it, which is why he's selling it.

So, here we are.

As someone else noted, he also mentioned selling off assets.

Consider the federal government controls unlawfully what amounts to entire states out west, and Alaska, with untold mineral wealth, just selling it off would generate enormous income.

Sure, environmentalists would freak, but hey, so what. They're lefties - it's a good thing they'll freak.
 
And yet, we have higher taxes now than at any time in our history. For the first hundred and fifty years, we relied almost exclusively on tariffs.

It was progressive socialists that fought to implement the income tax - and lo and behold, it's the income tax that ushered in the socialist era.

Hiding taxes (and raising the cost of everything you buy and probably reducing your selection- a lot of foods are now available year 'round because we are able to import them-- one third of our food supply is imported and would be subject to the 300% tariff) won't make the government spending go away.

Some people think they can avoid taxes by using a tariff instead of income taxes- they are wrong. Others think that it is the foreign companies paying the taxes- that too is wrong. It is all added to the price of everything.
 
]Consider the federal government controls unlawfully what amounts to entire states out west, and Alaska, with untold mineral wealth, just selling it off would generate enormous income.

A. Selling all federal lands and mineral rights would generate ~$2 trillion, not nearly enough (source)

B. LOL if you think Trump would even attempt to sell those assets.
 
As someone else noted, he also mentioned selling off assets.

Consider the federal government controls unlawfully what amounts to entire states out west, and Alaska, with untold mineral wealth, just selling it off would generate enormous income.

Sure, environmentalists would freak, but hey, so what. They're lefties - it's a good thing they'll freak.
You think that debt created by money being printed out of thin air, pimped to the American public at the barrel of a gun, ought to be paid for with physical assets which the Federal government has stolen?
 
You think that debt created by money being printed out of thin air, pimped to the American public at the barrel of a gun, ought to be paid for with physical assets which the Federal government has stolen?

I think the federal government should get rid of all assets, yes.

Your question presumes I think the government should have taken it in the first place. That is of course false. Not the least of which, because I think government shouldn't exist.

Explaining what Trump thinks, or not exaggerating what he is, does not mean I support him. You're watching a dialectic take place, almost exactly the one as the infamous "you either support communism or you support fascism". I support neither.

Trump is not a fascist, and I recognize my stance is more radical, essentially an anarcho-capitalist, to most other people. I don't feel it necessarily to take the communist position that is being espoused on this board to demonize everything that doesn't fit in with the communist plans, to prove I'm not a "fascist". The communists are unreasonable. The dialectic they are using is a lying technique. And libertarians are a third side (of many) - that aren't democrat or republican.
 
Last edited:
I think the federal government should get rid of all assets, yes.

Your question presumes I think the government should have taken it in the first place. That is of course false. Not the least of which, because I think government shouldn't exist.

Explaining what Trump thinks, or not exaggerating what he is, does not mean I support him. You're watching a dielectric take place, almost exactly the one as the infamous "you either support communism or you support fascism". I support neither.

Trump is not a fascist, and I recognize my stance is more radical, essentially an anarcho-capitalist, to most other people. I don't feel it necessarily to take the communist position that is being espoused on this board to demonize everything that doesn't fit in with the communist plans, to prove I'm not a "fascist". The communists are unreasonable. The dialectic is a lying technique. And libertarians are a third side (of many) - that aren't democrat or republican.
Fair enough.

Of course, the American public telling banking conglomerates to fuck off with regards to supposed debts is always an option too.

Being an anarcho-capitalist, is your position essentially that you do not owe anything with regards to the debt? If so, Trump selling any land is illegitimate and him using the proceeds to pay some imaginary debt is even more so.
 
Why can't I like the position - or the fact he's the only one saying it?

You shouldn't like his plan to pay off the debt through unspecified new trade deals and unspecified asset sales because it's obviously impossible.

You shouldn't be happy that at least he's talking about asset sales because he's a conman who says whatever is convenient at the moment.
 
You shouldn't like his plan to pay off the debt through unspecified new trade deals and unspecified asset sales because it's obviously impossible. .

It is obviously impossible you can't sell any assets of the government off, can't enact any tariffs (which was the entire method of taxing used for 150 years), or reduce any debt?

You're so eager to be against Trump, you can't recognize libertarian and constitutionalist arguments that have been made for decades.
 
The reason the liberty movement is falling apart over Trump is two fold:

a - not all of us were libertarian, and now they are recruiting for the progressives.

b - Trump is a *populist*. He will say what is popular with Americans, and take the best ideas current. That is the main reason we are falling apart.

You do not hate a populist for taking or modifying your idea because you hate the populist.

Instead you use it to educate and refine it to people, because likely he took it badly, and at least, as a populist, he's ideas will not be consistent.

But attacking him for HOLDING your ideas, or ideas adopted from you or are similar, is futile. You don't attack, you explain further. That is how this movement becomes the intellectual leaders. People that are mindlessly attacking him are tearing down libertarian ideas I - and we - have been building for many years.
 
It is obviously impossible you can't sell any assets of the government off, can't enact any tariffs (which was the entire method of taxing used for 150 years), or reduce any debt?

So now you're changing the terms of the argument?

Trump claimed he would be able to retire the debt completely within 8 years.

That is obviously impossible by the means he's proposing (numbers don't add up, as I've already explained).

You're so eager to be against Trump, you can't recognize libertarian and constitutionalist arguments that have been made for decades.

LOL if you think Trump's thinking is based in libertarianism or constitutionalism.

...or that he has the foggiest idea about either.

...or that he would give the slightest shit about either if he did.
 
The reason the liberty movement is falling apart over Trump is two fold:

a - not all of us were libertarian, and now they are recruiting for the progressives the non-libertarians are supporting a nationalist progressive

b - Trump is a *populist*. demagogue. He will say what is popular with Americans, and take the best ideas current. whatever people want to hear

FIFY

People that are mindlessly attacking him are tearing down libertarian ideas I - and we - have been building for many years.

LOL, yes yes, poor Trump, being attacked for his many bold libertarian ideas...

...like deporting millions of people, raising taxes, and implementing single-payer socialized medicine.
 
...is your position essentially that you do not owe anything with regards to the debt?

This “owe” thing really confuses me. IMO, there is nothing owed on the nation's annual deficit or (accumulated total) " national debt" because these words do not have the same meaning as an individual person abusing their multiple credit card accounts each year by spending more than they have each month while paying only the minimum balance due. Later they reflect on the staggering amount of money spent, and the even greater amount that will still be owed that same year including interest charges, or worse yet, total it all up decades later after continuing to rack up running balance and therefore, the total amount owed. These words (loan, borrow, interest, owe, debt, deficit, stimulus, quantitative easing and reserve) were carefully chosen to confuse people because the banks and government do not function like an individual or family would use the same words or apply them to their own financial situation.

I may be completely confused here, but it seems very simple (while it’s deliberately made to look complicated for the purpose of deception).

The nation's annual deficit is really the difference between the "money collected from fees and taxes", and the money spent. That difference is completely made up by legally counterfeiting new fiat money out of think. It is explained away as if the money is borrowed, taken from investors, taken as loans from the federal reserve bank or foreign banks/governments - like they have some real source of xx Trillions of real money. It's not going to be paid back because these are just rationalizations that take the focus off of the printing press that created the extra 20,000,000,000,000 dollars. The digital bits, ink, "paper" or "imaginary loans" cannot ever be paid back or put back.

A sizable portion of the "money collected from fees and taxes" that was considered above was not "real" either since it came from income paycheck withholding and corporate contracts that were all paid with previous imaginary fiat money that was printed out of thin air.

All the money, all this unreal fake money we use in the USA is mandated by law. It's all we have got! It is backed by our faith in our government... It is the debt. It represents what was "pretend borrowed" in the past, but it was actually produced by the "printing press".

There might be some "value" to a hunk of land, building, bar of gold, imaginary bit coin or contract for goods or services, but that's tiny in comparison to the "debt" or "fiat money" that has been created to make just about everything "go". Fiat value and usage is enforce by the full coercive force of the government and its military if necessary. The capability of the well-fiat-funded MIC, MIL, CIA, etc. is Yuuge!

Trump had better just listen to his new puppet master advisers, leave some of this deep gory stuff alone and concentrate on restoring optimism, language, boarders and culture, make some better deals to keep peace and productivity happening in order to make America great again.

The "nation's debt" is the historical total of every previous annual deficit PLUS OPTIONALLY the total of future obligations such as the promises to magically pay retirement, Medicare, pensions, bonds, loans and whatever made up scheme that was used to justify the creation of most of the fiat money that was previously printed out of thin air in the first place. There is no reserve or source of stockpiled money to borrow from at some arbitrary interest rate; it’s just the medium of exchange we must use. Admittedly, there are some really convoluted and confusing explanations how the magic porridge is real because it is really conjured up from someone else’s magic porridge pot.

There is no escape. Auditing the fed will just scare people. The can just needs to be kicked down the road at this point because recovering to a sound money system will be a bloody awful battle back to an even harsher life without the evil ultimate power to create money out of thin air...

There is nothing owed regarding the debt. The words make no sense in the context explained above. The debt and Creature from Jekyll Island, now own us... Those that think they can control it and know the right thing to do, are kidding themselves.

Now go back to sleep my friends and when you awake, you will feel refreshed... 3,2,1 SNAP!
 
Last edited:
This “owe” thing really confuses me.

Technically, the bills ARE debt instruments. If payable in silver dollars were put on them again (silver instead of gold in keeping with the bill of rights) - instead of it reading we owe the federal reserve 100x, it would read the federal reserve owes everyone 100x in silver dollars.

The problem isn't principle, but how to unwind such a monster. Selling off much of the federal government is a start. then obligations become private insurance, the postal service is bought out by fedex, etc etc. If there is next to no government, bankrupting the federal reserve - declaring it insolvent, is easy.

fyi - I'm putting people on ignore that interfere with talking about libertarian ideas. I've only put on three the last few weeks, but after the third or so admonishment that what they are doing is wrong morally, and their purpose is to interfere with discussion, I'm putting them on ignore.

If we all did this, pretty soon they'd have no one to talk to that really has libertarian ideas, and hence they might learn a valuable lesson, and certainly they couldn't hurt discussion much. There's plenty of people that I might disagree with slightly that are libertarians that will never be on that list, and some actually much worse people as far as views - supports sandeers - that might escape - because they nevertheless aren't crossing that line - at least yet.
 
Last edited:
fyi - I'm putting people on ignore that interfere with talking about libertarian ideas. I've only put on three the last few weeks, but after the third or so admonishment that what they are doing is wrong morally, and their purpose is to interfere with discussion, I'm putting them on ignore.

If we all did this, pretty soon they'd have no one to talk to that really has libertarian ideas, and hence they might learn a valuable lesson, and certainly they couldn't hurt discussion much. There's plenty of people that I might disagree with slightly that are libertarians that will never be on that list, and some actually much worse people as far as views - supports sandeers - that might escape - because they nevertheless aren't crossing that line - at least yet.
SpiritOf1776_J4... SpiritOf1776_J4!!

I am your Father!

signed,
D.Trump
 
Since when should pseudojournalist Bob Woodward get to decide what we think about what will work? I don't know if [insert politician's name here] realizes it or not, but they are all getting played when they allow the interviewer to become the interviewee. It solidifies the message that nobody has an answer to the problems we face.
 
So it turns out that Trump's answer to how he would do it is "sell off all government-owned properties" to pay down the debt.

This should be a familiar idea to anyone who didn't show up here for the first time yesterday.

Sounds like Rick Snyder.
 
Back
Top