that where all Hispanic Americanos will be going if Trump wins

USA will be just with the fat white trailer trash

anyway, it will not happen

Donald Trump sets a new record for economic recklessness

By Editorial Board

May 6 at 9:30 PM

AMONG THE many misconceptions fueling Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, one of the most stubborn, and most pernicious, is this: Government should run like a business, ergo Mr. Trump, a businessman, is especially qualified for the White House. As evidence that this is a dangerous fallacy, we would cite Mr. Trump’s CNBC interview Thursday, in which he mused about getting control over nearly $19 trillion in federal debt.

After rambling about how he is a “low-interest-rate person,” in part because cheap interest makes the federal debt manageable, which is true enough, he added that, as president, “I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal.” He separately hypothesized that the United States “can buy back [debt] at discounts. You can do things with discounts.”

If these phrases mean anything, they contemplate at least partial repudiation of the U.S. government’s obligations, sacrosanct since the time of the founding. The “full faith and credit” of the United States, established over centuries and embodied in its debt, is the glue that holds global finances together. The minute the United States tried to reduce its debt load by offering creditors less than 100 percent of principal and interest — i.e., by “discount,” or “making a deal,” like Argentina or Greece — every institution that had taken this country at its word would be instantly destabilized.

Those institutions would include the Chinese government and others abroad, holders of a third of the debt — which might be okay with Mr. Trump. But they would also include the Federal Reserve, which holds 13 percent of U.S. debt, and the Social Security Trust Fund (which Mr. Trump has promised to protect), which, combined with other federal accounts, holds 28 percent. And don’t get us started about pension funds, money market mutual funds and community banks.

Another name for this debt-reduction method would be: a giant cramdown imposed on the whole world, including the American people. Note that it’s much more radical than a very questionable idea that got traction among Republicans during the last showdown over the federal debt limit: namely, paying interest and principal while stiffing, temporarily, other claimants such as vendors and contractors. That alternative, mercifully never adopted, assumed that U.S. government bonds are nonnegotiable.

To be sure, this is the way Mr. Trump has often operated in the private sector: borrowing to finance a high-risk venture, then aggressively seeking relief from creditors if his plans didn’t pan out, including via bankruptcy court. “I have borrowed knowing you can pay back with discounts,” he told CNBC. Playing that game with bankers, who, as Mr. Trump has repeatedly noted, are not “babies” but sophisticated profit-seekers, is one thing. Doing it with, or to, ordinary savers and investors the world over is quite another.

In what may be only the first of many political cleanup jobs for him, Mr. Trump’s new campaign finance chairman, hedge fund operator Steven Mnuchin, averred that “the government has to honor its debts.” The fact remains that Mr. Trump himself implied the contrary, setting a new record for economic recklessness by a major party presumptive nominee, in his first week in that role.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trump-sets-a-new-record-for-economic-recklessness/2016/05/06/e1d1d2a0-13b5-11e6-93ae-50921721165d_story.html

U.S. Debt by President: By Dollar and Percent

Updated April 21, 2016.

What's the best way to determine how much of the $19 trillion U.S. debt is attributable to each President? The most popular way is to look at the debt level when each President took office. Sometimes it's easier to look at a graph showing the percent of the debt accumulated under each President. It's also important to compare the debt as a percent of economic output.

However, these aren't the most accurate ways to measure the debt contributed by each President. Why? The President doesn't have much control over the debt added during his first year in office. That's because the budget for that fiscal year was already set by the previous President.

For example, President Bush took office in January 2001. He submitted his first budget in February. That was for FY 2002 which began on October 1. Until then, he had to live with President Clinton's last budget (FY 2001), which continued until September 30. Although confusing, the Federal fiscal year is intentionally set up that way to give the new President time to put together his budget during his first month in office..

That means each new President has to live with the prior tax rates and spending levels for the first nine months of his first year in office. You can't hold him accountable for the budget deficit incurred by the previous President.

The Best Way to Measure Debt by President

One way to measure the debt by President is to sum all his budget deficits. That's because the President is responsible for his budget priorities. Each year's deficit takes into account budgeted spending and anticipated revenue from proposed tax cuts or hikes. For details, see Deficit by President and Deficit by Year.

However, there's a difference between the deficit and the debt by President. That's because all Presidents can employ a sleight of hand to reduce the appearance of his deficit. They can borrow internally from other government sources. For example, the Social Security Trust Fund has run a surplus since 1987. That's because there were more working people contributing via payroll taxes than retired people withdrawing benefits. The Fund invests its surplus in U.S. Treasury notes. The President can reduce his deficit by spending these funds, instead of issuing new ones.

Barack Obama - The national debt grew the most dollar-wise during President Obama's term. He added $6.494 trillion, a 56% increase, in seven years. Obama's budgets included the economic stimulus package. It added $787 billion by cutting taxes, extending unemployment benefits, and funding job-creating public works projects. The Obama tax cuts added $858 billion to the debt over two years. Obama's budget included increased defense spending to between $700 billion and $800 billion a year. Federal income was down, thanks to lower tax receipts from the 2008 financial crisis. He also sponsored the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which was designed to reduce the debt by $143 billion over ten years. However, these savings didn't show up until the later years. For more, see National Debt Under Obama.

George W. Bush - President Bush added the second greatest amount to the debt, at $5.849 trillion. But he added a lot more percentage-wise, more than doubling the debt. It was $5.8 trillion on September 30, 2001. That's the end of FY 2001, which was President Clinton's last budget. Bush responded to the 9/11 attacks by launching the War on Terror. That drove military spending to record levels of between $600-$800 billion a year. It included the Iraq War, which cost $807.5 billion. President Bush also responded to the 2001 recession by passing EGTRRA and JGTRRA, otherwise known as the Bush tax cuts, which reduced revenue. He approved a $700 billion bailout package for banks to combat the 2008 global financial crisis. Both Presidents Bush and Obama had to contend with higher mandatory spending for Social Security and Medicare. For more, see President Obama Compared to President Bush Policies.

Franklin D. Roosevelt - President Roosevelt increased the debt the most percentage-wise. Although he only added $236 billion, this was more than a 1,000% increase over the $23 billion debt level left by President Hoover's last budget. Of course, the Great Depression took an enormous bite out of revenues. However, most of the debt was added to gear up for World War II, not to pay for the New Deal. He added $209 billion to the debt between 1942-1945. For more, see FDR Economic Policies.

Woodrow Wilson - President Wilson was the second largest contributor to the debt percentage-wise. Although he only added $21 billion, this was a 727% increase over the $3 billion debt level of his predecessor. Wilson had to pay for World War I. In fact, the Second Liberty Bond Act was enacted during his Presidency, giving Congress the right to adopt the national debt ceiling.

Amount Added to the Debt for Each Fiscal Year Since 1960:

Barack Obama: Added $6.494 trillion, a 56% increase in the $11.657 trillion debt level attributable to President Bush by the end of his last budget, FY 2009.
•FY 2015 - $327 billion
•FY 2014 - $1.086 trillion.
•FY 2013 - $672 billion.
•FY 2012 - $1.276 trillion.
•FY 2011 - $1.229 trillion.
•FY 2010 - $1.652 trillion.
•FY 2009 - $253 billion. (Congress passed the Economic Stimulus Act, which spent $253 billion in FY 2009. This rare occurrence should be added to President Obama's contribution to the debt.)

George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion, a 101% increase to the $5.8 trillion debt level at the end of Clinton's last budget, FY 2001.
•FY 2009 - $1.632 trillion. (Bush's deficit without the impact of the Economic Stimulus Act).
•FY 2008 - $1.017 trillion.
•FY 2007 - $501 billion.
•FY 2006 - $574 billion.
•FY 2005 - $554 billion.
•FY 2004 - $596 billion.
•FY 2003 - $555 billion.
•FY 2002 - $421 billion.

Bill Clinton: Added $1.396 trillion, a 32% increase to the $4.4 trillion debt level at the end of Bush's last budget, FY 1993.
•FY 2001 - $133 billion.
•FY 2000 - $18 billion.
•FY 1999 - $130 billion.
•FY 1998 - $113 billion.
•FY 1997 - $188 billion.
•FY 1996 - $251 billion.
•FY 1995 - $281 billion.
•FY 1994 - $281 billion.

George H.W. Bush: Added $1.554 trillion, a 54% increase in the $2.8 trillion debt level at the end of Reagan's last budget, FY 1989.
•FY 1993 - $347 billion.
•FY 1992 - $399 billion.
•FY 1991 - $432 billion.
•FY 1990 - $376 billion.

Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, 186% increase in the $998 billion debt level at the end of Carter's last budget, FY 1981. See Did Reaganomics Work?
•FY 1989 - $255 billion.
•FY 1988 - $252 billion.
•FY 1987 - $225 billion.
•FY 1986 - $297 billion.
•FY 1985 - $256 billion.
•FY 1984 - $195 billion.
•FY 1983 - $235 billion.
•FY 1982 - $144 billion.

Jimmy Carter: Added $299 billion, a 43% increase in the $699 billion debt level at the end of Ford's last budget, FY 1977.
•FY 1981 - $90 billion.
•FY 1980 - $81 billion.
•FY 1979 - $55 billion.
•FY 1978 - $73 billion.

Gerald Ford: Added $224 billion, a 47% increase in the $475 billion debt level at the end of Nixon's last budget, FY 1974.
•FY 1977 - $78 billion.
•FY 1976 - $87 billion.
•FY 1975 - $58 billion.

Richard Nixon: Added $121 billion, a 34% increase in the $354 billion debt level at the end of LBJ's last budget, FY 1969.
•FY 1974 - $17 billion.
•FY 1973 - $31 billion.
•FY 1972 - $29 billion.
•FY 1971 - $27 billion.
•FY 1970 - $17 billion.

Lyndon B. Johnson: Added $42 billion, a 13% increase in the $312 billion debt level at the end of JFK's last budget, FY 1964.
•FY 1969 - $6 billion.
•FY 1968 - $21 billion.
•FY 1967 - $6 billion.
•FY 1966 - $3 billion.
•FY 1965 - $6 billion.

John F. Kennedy: Added $23 billion, a 8% increase in the $289 billion debt level at the end of Eisenhower's last budget, FY1961.
•FY 1964 - $6 billion.
•FY 1963 - $7 billion.
•FY 1962 - $10 billion.

Dwight Eisenhower: Added $23 billion, a 9% increase in the $266 billion debt level at the end of Truman's last budget, FY 1953.
•FY 1961 - $3 billion.
•FY 1960 - $2 billion.
•FY 1959 - $8 billion.
•FY 1958 - $6 billion.
•FY 1957 - $2 billion surplus.
•FY 1956 - $2 billion surplus.
•FY 1955 - $3 billion.
•FY 1954 - $5 billion.

Harry Truman: Added $7 billion, a 3% increase over FDR's debt level of $259 billion at the end of FY 1945.
•FY 1953 - $7 billion.
•FY 1952 - $4 billion.
•FY 1951 - $2 billion surplus.
•FY 1950 - $5 billion.
•FY 1949 - slight surplus.
•FY 1948 - $6 billion surplus.
•FY 1947 - $11 billion surplus.
•FY 1946 - $11 billion.

Franklin D. Roosevelt: Added $236 billion, a 1,048% increase over $23 billion, the debt at the end of Hoover's last budget, FY 1933.
•FY 1945 - $58 billion.
•FY 1944 - $64 billion.
•FY 1943 - $64 billion.
•FY 1942 - $23 billion.
•FY 1941 - $6 billion.
•FY 1940 - $3 billion.
•FY 1939 - $3 billion.
•FY 1938 - $1 billion.
•FY 1937 - $3 billion.
•FY 1936 - $5 billion.
•FY 1935 - $2 billion.
•FY 1934 - $5 billion.

Herbert Hoover: Added $6 billion, a 33% increase over $17 billion, the debt at the end of Coolidge's last budget, FY 1929.
•FY 1933 - $3 billion.
•FY 1932 - $3 billion.
•FY 1931 - $1 billion.
•FY 1930 - $1 billion surplus.

Calvin Coolidge: Subtracted $5 billion from the debt, a 26% decline from $21 billion the debt level at the end of Harding's last budget, FY 1923.
•FY 1929 - $1 billion surplus.
•FY 1928 - $1 billion surplus.
•FY 1927 - $1 billion surplus.
•FY 1926 - $1 billion surplus.
•FY 1925 - $1 billion surplus.
•FY 1924 - $1 billion surplus.

Warren G. Harding: Subtracted $2 billion from the debt, a 7% decline from the $24 billion debt at the end of Wilson's last budget, FY 1921.
•FY 1923 - $1 billion surplus.
•FY 1922 - $1 billion surplus.

Woodrow Wilson: Added $21 billion to the debt, a 727% increase to the $2.9 billion debt at the end of Taft's last budget, FY 1913.
•FY 1921 - $2 billion surplus.
•FY 1920 - $1 billion surplus.
•FY 1919 - $13 billion.
•FY 1918 - $9 billion.
•FY 1917 - $2 billion.
•FY 1916 - $1 billion.
•FY 1915 - $0 billion (slight surplus).
•FY 1914 - $0 billion.

FY 1789 - FY 1913: $2.9 billion debt created. (Source: U.S. Treasury, Historical Tables.)


http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/p/US-Debt-by-President.htm

to much is made of national debt...national debt only a worry is you

can;t pay the debt
can't refinances debt

the USA can easy do this, the USA can easy pay the interest ....Russia has very little debt, but it's fucked because it can't refinances the debt it has

This could be the biggest thrashing in American political history. Will be interesting in the Presidential campaign to see how much rhetoric Trump retracts from the Republican primaries. The guy is an intellectual idiot, so I expect plenty of gaffes.

"Say my name"

"Bryan Cranston"

"Youre goddamn right!"

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[youtube]KsGshRF4lWA[/youtube]

-PB

http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mccain-donald-trump-pow-statement-2016-5

Despite his endorsement, McCain recently acknowledged privately that Trump's at-times inflammatory statements about immigration and plan to deport the approximately 11 million immigrants living in the US illegally have made his 2016 Senate reelection bid much more difficult.

“If Donald Trump is at the top of the ticket, here in Arizona, with over 30% of the vote being the Hispanic vote, no doubt that this may be the race of my life,” McCain said at a private event, according to Politico. “If you listen or watch Hispanic media in the state and in the country, you will see that it is all anti-Trump. The Hispanic community is roused and angry in a way that I've never seen in 30 years.”

:roll:

yes, Rich boy Trump with his three butlers will come to the rescue of the white middle working class

I don't know how they calculated those numbers. Because going by his own quotes, apparently taxes are going up and down, but down for everyone, but more for rich people, but down for businesses etc etc...

Come on! There is nothing coherent in any of that....

Trump getting personally nasty with Clinton now.
It appeals to his ra ra base, but digs his hole even more with those towards the centre.
He's too fucking stupid to realise it.

it would be interesting to see a breakdown which had for each income
taxes-benefits - income normalized increase in deficit

Gotta love right wingers. Denial, denial, denial.
Wouldn't have a clue what an opinion poll is, let alone understanding the concept of statistical analysis.

The US has a large budget deficit. They can't afford to cut taxes overall. Certainly not without cutting spending.

and you fucking believe him :lol:

Wow. You set the bar pretty low.....

Dude even trolls know Hillary is full of shit , 0/10

i don't believe any of them....i just know the world will go to big shit if we have uncertainty for USA right now

you think this is about jobs, or health care (or some other shit)...this is about uncertainty, uncertainty form USA, bring war and dead people, and bring Australia security into questions (your family security)

this is a better analysis but not quite what should be done

I said one should look at tax change entitlement change and change in deficit together
this looks at the first two for one of the candidates (albeit one that has very little chance of winning)
http://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11640814/sanders-95-saves-money

Hillary has some negatives and was trailing in the polls to Kasich. Probably if any establishment republican won it would have been a close race. Unless an external shock occurs its hard to see trump even getting close to be honest

In other news, water is wet.

on Hillary's skeletons moderates and lefties don't appear to care about Benghazi though there is some concern amongst both of them about the email fiasco but most are waiting on the results of the fbi investigation. Some on the left care about the conservative parts of her husbands record (abolishing permanent welfare and crime laws)
On trump's trustworthiness: its hard to see trustworthiness as a selling point for trump

People don't think Clinton is trustworthy.

But they think she is sane and rational.

That is why she will become President.

Trump's isolationist stance works against the USA's own interest. There is some merit in arguing against the post-WW2 bipartisan foreign policy consensus of overseas intervention. But Trump takes this far too far.

An isolationist US will leave a power vacuum to be filled by China and Russia, and will kickoff a subsequent arms race between east and west Europe, and within asia.

And the USA will eventually get drawn in to these conflicts as they will directly affect the USA's security and economic interests. But they will be forced into these conflicts from a position of weakness.

and when Putin does something , like invade the baltics states....what does Trump do?...because Putin believe it his right, that it Russia right to rules over large part of East Europe (baltics states, Poland )

and by the way...in Russia, there no win-win, there only win-lose ...if you believe in a win-win, it means you'r weak and should be exploited

Trump advocates for isolationism, and as an island nation we should do the same. The only certainty Hillary brings is more woe for the people, more benefits for business and banks, secrecy and shady dealings.

the day that happens, is the day Russia invades Europe , and China tell Australia what to do (or maybe Australia will fight)


the shit your talking now...is that of a guy who trying to G it up in a chat site....or you nothing but a idiot fool

This explains the Australian Left in a nutshell!

Australia is very tolerant and embraces sheer lunacy!

i don't get this hang up on Benghazi ....the yanks didn't even want to go into Libya,, it was the fucking French and Nicolas Sarkozy who fuck it up., the Yanks only went in to Support the French and British , because they couldn't do the job

what so different about this attack on this American diplomatic compound that different to all the other fucking time it happen in some shit hole place in the world ?

yes, this is it 100%

If USA become isolationist.....Australia is fucked, it be the 1st time in Australia history, that Australia hasn't had Britain or USA rule the seas ....your lives in Australia would be so fucking different , it's Australian military planners greatest fear, that American become isolationist

1st thing that happen, is Australian military spending will go to 5% plus of GDP...just like Israel and Singapore , who Australia military planners and government will model Australia now on

I don't think it's fair to say that Trump is strictly an isolationist - it's just that he's against dumb wars in the MENA region.

The dickheadedness of Trump begins dawning on people.....