Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, October 22, 2017

Daniel Altman, Foreign Policy: Donald Trump has done the United States a peculiar favor. By campaigning on promises to cut taxes and raise government spending, which economists agree will increase the national debt by trillions of dollars, he has at least been honest about his party's abandonment of fiscal conservatism. But there is more to his strategy, which may well bankrupt the nation just as he bankrupted so many companies. He has relied on his usual business strategy, starting with the seduction of starry-eyed investors (now voters) with the glamour of the Trump name and promises of monumental proportions. The next steps -- the ones that led him to repeated bankruptcies -- are more ominous: Lever up a mountain of debt, and then leave others to foot the bill when repayment becomes impossible.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Don't worry, I'll be okay. Very okay. Double-plus good, in fact. The rest of you miserable schmucks? Not so good. Sad!
~ Don "I'm Like a Smart Person" Trumpelstiltskin

#1 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2017-10-20 10:56 AM | Reply

"Lever up a mountain of debt, and then leave others to foot the bill when repayment becomes impossible."

Trump's personal business strategery just happens to be the same as the Republican governing strategery.... lever up a mountain of debt with tax cuts and wars, then sit out the recession while Dems tidy up after them and take the blame for a slow recovery.

It's Starve the Beast from the Reagan '80's and it has never changed since.

"It was the birth of what is now known as "Starve the Beast" – a conscious strategy by conservatives to force cuts in federal spending by bankrupting the country.

As conceived by the right-wing intellectual Irving Kristol in 1980, the plan called for Republicans to create a "fiscal problem" by slashing taxes – and then foist the pain of reimposing fiscal discipline onto future Democratic administrations who, in Kristol's words, would be forced to "tidy up afterward."

www.rollingstone.com

A seminal political article of our time.

Modern Republicans enhanced it by adding wars to tax cuts to, you know, get a bigger bang.

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2017-10-20 11:32 AM | Reply

When you elect a president owned by Putin what else would you expect. Trump voters are despicable.

#3 | Posted by danni at 2017-10-20 11:39 AM | Reply

- When you elect a president owned by Putin

Oy vey.

#4 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-10-20 11:41 AM | Reply

"As conceived by the right-wing intellectual Irving Kristol in 1980, the plan called for Republicans to create a "fiscal problem" by slashing taxes – and then foist the pain of reimposing fiscal discipline onto future Democratic administrations who, in Kristol's words, would be forced to "tidy up afterward.""

In other words, destroy the social safety net. Destroy SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps and everything else that assists low income people in this country. Czar Nicholas tried this approach. Just saying.... and yeah, I really mean that.

#5 | Posted by danni at 2017-10-20 11:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"- When you elect a president owned by Putin
Oy vey."

Then give us a better explanation for his eradic leadership, irresponsible tax policies, and general craziness.

#6 | Posted by danni at 2017-10-20 11:43 AM | Reply

"Supply-side economics aren't really unique to the last quarter of the 20th century and beyond. The model, known pejoratively as "trickle down" economics, had another name in the past.

This model, largely credited with the 1896 panic, was called "Horse and Sparrow" economics, on the theory that if one feeds the horses enough oats, eventually there will be something left behind for the sparrows.

No prizes for guessing who the sparrows are. They are the mom and pop small business owners, and the rest of us who aren't millionaires to begin with."

www.newmainetimes.org

#7 | Posted by Corky at 2017-10-20 11:45 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Good to see the GOP firmly embracing failed economic theories from the 19th century.

They push tinkle down as a way to boost the economy, create jobs and pay off the debt created through growth.

That is the golden lie. They know it won't boost the economy, create jobs or pay down the debt at all. Quite the opposite, they are counting on it to balloon the debt so they can push to kill social security, medicare and medicaid because they believe that only millionaires deserve to retire or get medical care.

#8 | Posted by 726 at 2017-10-20 12:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"They know it won't boost the economy, create jobs or pay down the debt at all. Quite the opposite"

Exactly.

When clients are marginally in higher tax brackets, we talk about strategies to reinvest, to return to the lower brackets. When in lower brackets, it's comparatively more advantageous to take money out of the business, since the tax hit isn't so bad.

Not that I'm recommending a 90% marginal rate, but imagine the incentive to reinvest at that point.

#9 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-10-20 12:29 PM | Reply

He'll have to go quite a way to outspend Bush & obama.

#10 | Posted by MSgt at 2017-10-20 12:38 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

The debt coupled with the unfunded liabilities have already bankrupted this country.

What Trump does is pretty much irrelevant.

#11 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-20 02:38 PM | Reply

Please tell me who added 10 trillion to the debt in 8 years.

#12 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-10-20 03:29 PM | Reply

"The debt coupled with the unfunded liabilities have already bankrupted this country."

People have been saying that nearly my whole life Jeff and they all thought they really knew what they were talking about. We have a well know restaurant here in Ft. Lauderdale with warnings about it written on the walls, been there since at least the 70's. It's gotten to be a joke.

#13 | Posted by danni at 2017-10-20 03:53 PM | Reply

The unfunded liabilities are the real problem, Danni.

The current level of debt isn't catastrophic but with deficits in the hundreds of billions for as far as the eye can see, we are reaching a point where the debt will become a major problem.

Also, as you well know, sooner or later interest rates are going to have to increase from this ridiculous near-0% rate they are at now.

#14 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-20 03:56 PM | Reply

She doesn't know that jeff.

#15 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-10-20 04:48 PM | Reply

Snipe

She knows that zero percent interest played a role in the financial meltdown.

#16 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-20 04:52 PM | Reply

Good to know the national debt was under control prior to Jan. of 2017, lol.

#17 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2017-10-22 01:34 AM | Reply

- When you elect a president owned by Putin
Oy vey.

#4 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

Yeah, it's just a coincidence that he has trashed every other national leader, except Putin and other dictators (oh, yeah, and Netanyahu).

#18 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2017-10-22 01:52 PM | Reply

"- When you elect a president owned by Putin"

Putin, Putin, Russia, Russia...I simply cannot understand how you and your little friends spend so much time and print on Trump "non-collusion" where there's NO proof when you have the REAL Russian collusion with the Uranium One deal.

"This week, news broke confirming the Clinton Uranium One scandal we learned about two years ago was completely true. Hillary Clinton took $145 million in donations to her Foundation in return for selling 20 percent of America's uranium to the Russians.

The reaction from the mainstream media was pretty remarkable. We saw a media blackout. It was actually kind of comical to see liberal hosts and commentators squirm out of having to cover the fact that is was HILLARY who colluded with Russia. Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC had the best excuse, though. She said that she didn't need to cover these new bombshell allegations confirming the scandal because she spent 92 seconds talking about it on air 2 years ago when it first broke. Yes, I went back and counted the seconds...

Yet, the bombshells keep dropping. We know for a FACT that this scandal reached practically all of the career leadership in the DOJ and FBI, Robert Mueller, James Comey, Hillary Clinton, and even Barack Obama. Now we can add another name to the list of criminals: Bill Clinton."

This is from the Conservative Daily and the things stated here are absolute FACT regardless of anything Snopes says.

#19 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2017-10-22 01:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

the things stated here are absolute FACT

Of course. The source that tells you what you want to hear is always the correct one.

#20 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-10-22 02:06 PM | Reply

Please tell me who added 10 trillion to the debt in 8 years. #12 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-10-20 03:29 PM
Every administration since 1775.

#21 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-10-22 02:09 PM | Reply

"Of course. The source that tells you what you want to hear is always the correct one."

There are NINE signatures on that deal inked in paper. Four of them are named above. I'm sure you can find the other five if you're at all interested. There is also a photo of Bill Clinton meeting with Putin. Seems to me that YOU don't want to find or hear anything you DON'T wanna find or hear. Are you now gonna assert that there never was a deal with Russia over 20% of U.S. uranium?

I know of two other signers I found through research, DOJ Holder and FBI Rubenstein.

#22 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2017-10-22 02:30 PM | Reply

"As he prepared to collect a $500,000 payday in Moscow in 2010, Bill Clinton sought clearance from the State Department to meet with a key board director of the Russian nuclear energy firm Rosatom -- which at the time needed the Obama administration's approval for a controversial uranium deal, government records show.

Arkady Dvorkovich, a top aide to then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and one of the highest-ranking government officials to serve on Rosatom's board of supervisors, was listed on a May 14, 2010, email as one of 15 Russians the former president wanted to meet during a late June 2010 trip, the documents show ... "

Here's some reading for you and you can find the photos on the internet too.

thehill.com/policy/national-security/356323-bill-clinton-sought-states-permission-to-meet-with-
russian-nuclear

#23 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2017-10-22 02:42 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Hillary Clinton took $145 million in donations to her Foundation in return for selling 20 percent of America's uranium to the Russians.

I'd like to see the proof for that statement.

#24 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-10-22 02:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

he has at least been honest about his party's abandonment of fiscal conservatism

POSTED BY DOC_SARVIS

When were Republicans EVER fiscal conservatives?

It's Americas failure to recognized what has never been that is perplexing.

#25 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2017-10-22 02:49 PM | Reply

Like to see PROOF. You never will because all the Uranium One BS is difficult not to laugh at. Uranium mined by the Canadian company Uranium One is still restricted to sales to U.S. and Canadian power plants JUST LIKE BEFORE. All that changed was a change of ownership. U.S. had one of 9 votes on a panel that wrote State Dept (not Clinton, different officials did the work) report that President Obama and Canadian government reviewed to approve new ownership/board. The 20% of uranium sent to Russia is the line to key on - IT IS 100% FALSE because no North American mining company can send uranium to Russia. Does not prevent millions of Trump supporters from dreaming that "Clinton sent 20% of uranium to Russia". Can't make this ---- up. See Snopes/Uranium One Deal for the truth. Of course, earlier poster says do not trust Snopes.

#26 | Posted by clearheaded12 at 2017-10-22 04:29 PM | Reply

You never will because all the Uranium One BS is difficult not to laugh at.

I know, but Jest and his little conservative friends have trouble grasping that.

#27 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-10-22 04:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The history:

Reagan TRIPLED deficit from 1 to 3 trillion dollars BY CHOICE with absurd fantasy tax cuts/increased military spending.

Bush add a little more debt to over 4 Trillion dollars

Clinton years in the 1990s close to flat.

GW Bush DOUBLED deficit from 5 to 10.5 trillion dollars BY CHOICE again (wars, tax cuts again, unfunded Rx drug plan)

Obama increase debt from 10.5 billion to 19 billion (+80%) DUE to A WORLD WIDE ECONOMIC COLLAPSE and his choices were the right ones and the policies blocked did not help. He spent as the last resort and Republicans refused to let Bush tax cuts expire (unemployed held hostage in benefits deal. At least he had a REASON - NOT BY CHOICE WITH FANTASYLAND (read K. Anderson) ECONOMICS.

Does everybody understand exploding deficits BY CHOICE (doubling and tripling under Repubs) VS. a deficit increase that any President would have also experienced?

#28 | Posted by clearheaded12 at 2017-10-22 04:42 PM | Reply

"Reagan TRIPLED deficit from 1 to 3 trillion dollars BY CHOICE with absurd fantasy tax cuts/increased military spending."

#28 | POSTED BY CLEARHEADED12 AT 2017-10-22 04:42 PM | REPLY: Guess you are unaware that the dems promised to also give him the spending cuts he wanted - but being dems, the failed to deliver on that. But hey, you got half of the equation.

#29 | Posted by MSgt at 2017-10-22 07:07 PM | Reply

When were Republicans EVER fiscal conservatives?

#25 | POSTED BY WHATSLEFT

Certainly not in my lifetime.

#30 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-23 10:48 AM | Reply

Please tell me who added 10 trillion to the debt in 8 years.

#12 | POSTED BY SNIPER

Bush's tax cuts. Thankfully Obama reduced the deficit while in office.

#31 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-10-23 11:29 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Reagan TRIPLED deficit from 1 to 3 trillion dollars BY CHOICE with absurd fantasy tax cuts/increased military spending."
#28 | POSTED BY CLEARHEADED12 AT 2017-10-22 04:42 PM | REPLY: Guess you are unaware that the dems promised to also give him the spending cuts he wanted - but being dems, the failed to deliver on that. But hey, you got half of the equation.

#29 | POSTED BY MSGT

Spending cuts were fine. It's WHAT he wanted to cut that was the issue.

History is our friend.

#32 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-10-23 11:31 AM | Reply

Reduced the deficit?

That means there was one.

So the National Debt continues to grow based on interest, and add in the deficit spending.

This is why both parties suck.

The followers believe reducing the amount of spending is a good thing when spending exceeds revenue. This is both parties.

Idiots all.

#33 | Posted by Petrous at 2017-10-23 11:47 AM | Reply

Can trump before trump can.

#34 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-10-23 11:53 AM | Reply

Please tell me who added 10 trillion to the debt in 8 years.
#12 | POSTED BY SNIPER

Even with that giant scope, I doubt the sniper will ever see the difference between debt and deficit.

This is why we need educational reform in this country.

#35 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-10-23 11:55 AM | Reply

Accrued interest and added the deficits to it.

Yeah, both parties are stupid.

#36 | Posted by Petrous at 2017-10-23 12:08 PM | Reply

The followers believe reducing the amount of spending is a good thing when spending exceeds revenue. This is both parties.
Idiots all.

#33 | POSTED BY PETROUS

But but but we need to spend 3/4 of the budget on a military that really only needs 1/3...

-DR Conservatives

#37 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-10-23 01:33 PM | Reply

#37: Seriously? 3/4 of the budget on military? Put down the crack pipe, please.

#38 | Posted by Daniel at 2017-10-23 01:58 PM | Reply

#38 | POSTED BY DANIEL

You're right; they're actually aiming for 55/56ths of the budget to be spent on military.

#39 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-10-23 02:26 PM | Reply

Yes pile up the mountain Trump Dump, as next Republicans President will have about 16 - 20 yrs to come and check back the debt. No one cares of Debt, Republicans Conservatives are dummies, forgot their values...no one is republican, all are selfish Trump Dump.

#40 | Posted by material07310 at 2017-10-23 03:58 PM | Reply

Nope, this isn't any different than when a Democrat is in office and decides to implement legislation that just gives social programs away like candy, causing the next administration (whether Dem or Rep) having to pay for it. Nope, not 100% exactly, inarguable like it at all..........

#41 | Posted by humtake at 2017-10-24 11:41 AM | Reply

- When you elect a president owned by Putin
Oy vey.

#4 | Posted by SheepleSchism

Still avoiding the truth?

How does hating hillary make you blind to the truth about trump?

#42 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-24 11:48 AM | Reply

Nope, this isn't any different than when a Democrat is in office and decides to implement legislation that just gives social programs away like candy, causing the next administration (whether Dem or Rep) having to pay for it. Nope, not 100% exactly, inarguable like it at all..........

#41 | Posted by humtake

Republicans think no one can look up actual facts:

www.theatlantic.com

GOP Presidents Have Been the Worst Contributors to the Federal Debt
Republican presidents have added far more to federal debt levels than Democrats, as a percent of GDP. But Obama's joined Reagan, the Bushes and Ford in the debt-raising camp.

#43 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-24 11:51 AM | Reply

Still avoiding the truth?
#42 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

You believe Danni's "a president owned by Putin" nonsense is "truth"?

Oy Vey!!

#44 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-10-24 12:06 PM | Reply

You believe Danni's "a president owned by Putin" nonsense is "truth"?

Oy Vey!!

#44 | Posted by SheepleSchism

The only way you could believe it ISNT truth is if you're purposefully avoiding it.

I'd love to hear your ALTERNATE explanation for how trump ended up with a putin operative as his campaign manager, putin's favorite oil CEO as secretary of state, and putin's favorite general as national security advisor.

I'll wait.

#45 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-24 12:15 PM | Reply

#44 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

I'm not sure if your ignorance is transience or problem of bias. en.wikipedia.org

#46 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-10-24 12:16 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort