Is Trump manufacturing a crisis? And if so, why?

[Gary Childress]

As soon as Trump got into office, he started making radical cuts and throwing up tariffs--claiming that America is bankrupt. And yet we have had a deficit for decades and have been able to function normally for the most part. Was it prudent of Trump to declare bankruptcy? Is the havoc he is creating necessary?

[FlashDangerpants]

Was it prudent of Trump to declare bankruptcy?

When he was told to stop laundering money for the mob through his casinos he bankrupted those. Why shouldn't he use his same business tricks again?

Did he declare America bankrupt though? That would be a bad thing for a president to say, even by his standards.

[Gary Childress]

Was it prudent of Trump to declare bankruptcy?

When he was told to stop laundering money for the mob through his casinos he bankrupted those. Why shouldn't he use his same business tricks again?

Did he declare America bankrupt though? That would be a bad thing for a president to say, even by his standards.

I heard it said somewhere by someone. I'm not sure if it was Trump or not but if it wasn't, then I think it was one of his insiders who made the comment. Either way, we've been going on deficits for decades and all these sudden changes seem like they could be a stunt--not to mention outright reckless.

[Gary Childress]

Maybe this is where I saw the quote: https://www.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-wa ... 00564.html

[Flannel Jesus]

Maybe this is where I saw the quote: https://www.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-wa ... 00564.html

It's entirely ambiguous what quote you're taking about

[Gary Childress]

Maybe this is where I saw the quote: https://www.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-wa ... 00564.html

It's entirely ambiguous what quote you're taking about

It looks like the quote of America being bankrupt stems from Musk telling everyone at a cabinet meeting we're headed for bankruptcy and need to make drastic cuts.

[Alexis Jacobi]

we're headed for bankruptcy and need to make drastic cuts.

Which is a fair assessment of things. Far too much reckless spending, over-printing of money, and far too much money required for infrastructure projects and — this is expensive — the funding of social programs.

[Gary Childress]

we're headed for bankruptcy and need to make drastic cuts.

Which is a fair assessment of things. Far too much reckless spending, over-printing of money, and far too much money required for infrastructure projects and — this is expensive — the funding of social programs.

Is taking a sledgehammer approach the right approach?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I do not have enough experience or direct knowledge to fairly assess the Trump administration’s tariff actions. So, I also am disconcerted.

I often listen the Bannon’s assessments and he describes these changes as a “revolution”. But to believe him, you’d have to accept his initial premises.

The NYT’s (I read it everyday) seems to me a “traitor”-like news source. For them (and MSNBC etc.) it is pure, open opposition to Trump no matter what. Myself, I despise them across the board.

It is hard to know who has “accurate” assessments.

[FlashDangerpants]

Was it prudent of Trump to declare bankruptcy?

When he was told to stop laundering money for the mob through his casinos he bankrupted those. Why shouldn't he use his same business tricks again?

Did he declare America bankrupt though? That would be a bad thing for a president to say, even by his standards.

I heard it said somewhere by someone. I'm not sure if it was Trump or not but if it wasn't, then I think it was one of his insiders who made the comment. Either way, we've been going on deficits for decades and all these sudden changes seem like they could be a stunt--not to mention outright reckless.

Cool. As long as the President of the United States of America never says anything to imply that the nation is at risk of being unable to service its debts, then any other grandstanding bullshit is neither here nor there. But that first thing, he would not be president any more the next day if he said something like that. Either by way of the 25th or just a shot to the head, he would be gone.

Clinton ran a series of budget surpluses in his second term. Bush inherited a surplus in his first year in office, he used that to justify massive tax cuts. It's been pure deficit ever since. Budget deficits are entirely unproblematic if you are able to service your debts, which the USA is clearly able to do.

People like Trump and Musk - both of whom are wildly leveraged in their own business dealings and think nothing of borrowing many billions for own use - know that. The reasons why they do the sort of stuff they do are varied. Partly it's just politics as usual, all Republicans pretend to be horrified by deficits when it suits them to do so (usually that is when the President is a Democrat), mainly because their voters are kind of dumb and believe it all the time. But the extra dynamics include that Trump wants more tax cuts, which have to be at least notionally "funded" in order to get Congressional approval. But don't sleep on this tariffs thing, Trump is firmly convinced that any idea he has or likes must be the very best idea available - that's just how narcissism works - so he really does believe that the tariffs will magically fix your economy and return your budget to surplus and pay for all the pensions and allow him to abolish income taxes entirely. People keep treating him like he doesn't mean the things he says just because he forgets what he's said so often. They are wrong, anything he says repeatedly for years, he means.

Meanwhile Musk seems to be an accelerationist who wants to bring about the network state to replace America with. He seemingly imagines his own offspring will be uniquely adapted to succeed in that scenario, which is why he keeps offering his sperm to anyone who will take it. So looking for good reasons why he does stuff will only ever disappoint from now on. That said, a fear of imminent fiscal collapse among the irretrievably silly Republican primary voters is very useful to him as it helps him to finance electoral candidates that suit his version of the MAGA agenda. Similarly, if he is able to maintain the smoke and mirrors, he can keep a number of right wingers convinced his DOGE squad are actually saving real money and that helps him stay within the orbit of power in spite of holding no actual office anywhere of any kind.

[Impenitent]

Is taking a sledgehammer approach the right approach?

worked for Peter Gabriel...

-Imp