TRUMP: Our country needs a good shutdown

Yet the problem is, the American people are hopelessly divided on a ton of matters. It's both the beauty of democracy and the curse; you always need to find a way that the majority of the people can consent to, or be punished next election. A ton of people also claim to speak for the people or to know exactly what "the people" want. Yet, especially here, I have yet to see any indication that there is a majority of what "the people" actually want. You might not trust them with 20 dollars, but their voice matters just as much as yours. (Unless you're from a state like New York, because in this system, a person has less say than someone else)

Again, you republicans have the tools. Congress, a president and a Supreme Court. Then why do you think legislation isn't passed still? Maybe because there are major differences within the republican party as well? I think you'd do everyone a favor if you'd start polling what just the republican voters would like.

 

Yes, we are. Take taxes for instances, we all want tax cuts, right? Well, I do. I think it's good for me to get more money in each paycheck and more back at the end of the year and pay less in all of my investments, etc. We have common areas that everyone should agree on. Yet look at this forum. Even tax cuts gets wrapped into a myriad of "tax cuts only for the wealthy" nonsense.

In the end, It's really a no win situation for the current government.

The people and the government need to come together and start working for what is best for America. IMO.

 

I can think of people that do not want tax cuts as long as it's for the greater good. In my country a shrinking number is thinking that way, but there are still people that think that way. I'm sure some of those people can be found in the US as well.

Saying that tax cuts are a good thing is 1 thing. Working those things out another. You'll find a horribly divided population once you try to make actual suggestions. Will government spending need to be cut back? If so, where? Which people will lose their job or medicare because of it? How much should those tax breaks be and who should be the one receiving those breaks? How should it be paid for? Should a part of the population pay more tax instead? How much and which part of the population?

In general I'm sure that in the US, the vast majority wants a tax break, but things aren't that simple. As an outsider, I'd say it's also due to the unwillingness and incompetence in American political culture to reach a compromise. Because of it, it will always be much harder to pass reforms.

 

Trying to understand Trump can drive a person crazy until one comprehends three important factors about the man.

First, he is an alpha male with strong narcissistic tendencies. He loves talking about himself, his accomplishments, and he rarely shares credit as do most politicians, even if the sharing is gratuitous. Most important, he loves when other people talk about him, and it does not have to be in positive sense. If people talk about him in a negative sense, Trump is fine with that as long as they are talking about him.

Second, above all, Trump is a showman. He has nearly an insatiable appetite for making headlines. It is something he must do daily, multiple times a day, to keep himself in the limelight. The more sensational, the more outrageous, the better. This explains his almost child-like tweets and his shotgun approach to governing.

Which brings us the third and last trait. He must constantly prove his prowess at governing by his rapid-fire solutions to all our nation's problems. This last characteristic drives his colleagues in Congress to distraction because on a daily basis he offers promises to the American people that are a work in progress or are simply not possible in the near future if at all. In one day Trump will promise a healthcare plan that will have much lower premiums and deductibles while at the same time taking care of pre-existing conditions, suggest Glass-Steagall type legislation to break up the banks, and a gas tax to fund his tax reform.

Trump has a history of highly controversial remarks or tweets that go back to his first day in office. Here are some of his off-the-reservation comments just since Saturday.

He called for a shutdown of the government. "Either elect more Republican Senators in 2018 or change the rules now to 51%. Our country needs a good 'shutdown' in September to fix mess!"

He attacked our Constitution. He blamed the Constitutional checks and balances for his failures. “It’s a very rough system,” he said. “It’s an archaic system … It’s really a bad thing for the country.”

He said Andrew Jackson could have prevented the Civil War. "I mean had Andrew Jackson been a little later you wouldn’t have had the Civil War. He was a very tough person, but he had a big heart. He was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War, he said, “There’s no reason for this.” Jackson was a Southern and slave owner. Other than wanting to be the center of attention, what possible reason would Trump have for making such a moronic statement?

He said he would be "honored" to have talks with the madman, Kim Jung-un. "If it would be appropriate for me to meet with him, I would absolutely, I would be honored to do it," Trump told Bloomberg News in an interview Monday. "If it's under the, again, under the right circumstances. But I would do that." Trump talks too much and shows his naïveté. Direct talks with Kim are an outstanding idea, but such talks should be arranged through back channels and anything having to do with those talks is not meant for public consumption. Trump is too inexperienced and gullible to understand that.

Trump invited a stone-cold killer to the White House, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte. Duterte has overseen a campaign of extrajudicial executions of suspected drug addicts and drug dealers that has claimed more than 7,000 lives. Trump wants Duterte to assist him with his difficulties with North Korea. That is all well and good. However, the comments I made above concerning Kim also apply to Duterte. So, once again Trump's naïveté gets in the way of good governance.

But does Trump care? All this doesn't concern him one bit. He will continue to operate like a wrecking ball, smashing all the principles of sound leadership in Washington and let the chips fall where them may. In his book, he is doing exactly what he wants to do. He continues to talk about himself, bragging about his limited accomplishments, and people are talking about him.

He wouldn't have it any other way.

 

It would be great politically for Democrats. If it weren't so expensive. Government shut-downs in the past have cost almost $2 billion per day.

One of the reasons why the GOP is the party of big government spending, big deficits and big financial crisis.

But it's just one more of the empty "promises" he makes to the alt-right. For how long will they keep gobbling them up?

 

And could Germany pay back that debt? No.

Which thus sent the economy into a massive downward spiral.

Meanwhile, the U.S. has shown no signs of being unable to pay back the *loans* (very different from reparations).

However, defaulting on the debt would simulate a situation similar to Germany. The US debt is already massive, larger than our GDP. Defaulting on the debt doesnt make it go away, but it does trash out credit rating. And anyone who has bought into the US debt, many of whom US citizens, would be out a ton of money. This then reduces consumer confidence throughout the global economy, which has a ripple effect, tanking the whole thing.

 

You're just restating your point. Why would any of this happen? You need to give reasoning.

Government shutdowns and inefficiency are a major reason Congress's approval rating is so low. Saying the President outright sabotaging Congress and forcing a shutdown to remove political opponents wouldn't have a negative effect on the economy is moronic.

 

Of course it couldn't pay back the debt. Neither can we, and the proof of that is the annual raising of the debt limit. It's impossible to pay it back, just as it was for the weimar republic.

 

It's less than 1%. In fact at 15trillion it's about 1/6 of 1%

The trouble is I do understand. Sorry but that money, primarily defense and infrastructure is about thirty percent of the economy. We can fund it without adding to the deficit at current levels. That 24 billion isn't even a down payment on anything else Not EBT cards or welfare and social security is not even part of the budget. Hell that 24 billion isn't even 1% of the federal budget. They could save that much by not buying new furniture next year. It's an even smaller part of the US GDP.

 

So you admit a situation in which the US government admits that it can no longer make payments to the people who owns it debt would be just like what happened with Germany after WWI?

Because that's what defaulting on our debt means. I would rather prevent it for as long as possible rather than destroy a system that has yet to show any signs of failing.

 

I'm sure you would. That debt is what keeps the unproductive in beans and bread. This is also why they are now running around like chicken little worrying how they are going to eat when the beans are no longer free.

 

If by "unproductive" you mean everyone ranging from the working class to the 1%, then yes.

Again, look at the Great Depression, look at the economic collapse of Germany. These didn't just affect the "unproductive" members of society, it affected everyone.

I can only assume now that you're being wilfully ignorant towards history.

I would rather avoid a global economic collapse. Odds are, in such desperate times, we'll go into WW3 and nuke eachother into an unending winter, which is pretty much the end of most life on Earth.

 

Really? Then who was this Cuomo clown who launched millions of toxic 5 year ARM time bombs?

*July 29, 1999*

------------------------------------------------------------------------

*CUOMO ANNOUNCES ACTION TO PROVIDE $2.4 TRILLION IN MORTGAGES FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR 28.1 MILLION FAMILIES*

See full chart of higher goals by metropolitan area
<http://archives.hud.gov/news/1999/pr99131cht.pdf>

WASHINGTON - Housing and Urban Development Secretary Andrew Cuomo today
announced a policy to require the nation's two largest housing finance
companies to buy $2.4 trillion in mortgages over the next 10 years to
provide affordable housing for about 28.1 million low- and
moderate-income families.

Cuomo said the historic action by HUD raises the required percentage of
mortgage loans for low- and moderate-income families that finance
companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac must buy from the current 42
percent of their total purchases to a new high of 50 percent - a 19
percent increase - in the year 2001. The percentage will first increase
to 48 percent in 2000.

Don't tell me ,,, the Democrat candidate for 2020 --- the only prominent Democrat who doesn't belong in Jurassic Park.