Sign in to follow this  
deicer

Trump 2.0 Continues

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, Malcolm said:

Some have noticed that I changed my original title for this forum.  I believe in being fair and thought the new title would encourage "Liberals" to jump in and chronicle the "Good" side of Justin, so far though  their silence is overwhelming .   🙃

I believe this is in the wrong thread.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, deicer said:

I believe this is in the wrong thread.....

Indeed!

This thread is reserved for the treatment and counselling  of those suffering from acute Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Wolfhunter said:

Indeed!

This thread is reserved for the treatment and counselling  of those suffering from acute Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Is that what you call truth seeking non-fake news believers? 😘

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Truth seeking via the news is a difficult task now and hats off to those who have the time, discipline and inclination to prevail. It's not as easy as it once was and media manipulation is subtle and often (I think) goes unnoticed. Overt things like the CNN reporter ejected from the White House, tend to resonate more than they should. 

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Sir, I agree with you that it takes a lot of work to winnow out the truth.

On that note, I present this article for your consideration.  It goes a long way into explaining why the U.S. is where it is today and why we've been having this conversation for 135 pages.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/03/how-kleptocracy-came-to-america/580471/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, deicer said:

It goes a long way into explaining why the U.S. is where it is today and why we've been having this conversation for 135 pages.

You can end the drawn out conversation at any time by presenting a viable alternative that isn't worse. I will even settle for a few ideas that aren't worse. How about political rhetoric that doesn't border on complete lunacy; I can even work with that. Even a bit of basic kindness would go along way; they could simply stop the fake expressions of indignation and outrage over the very sort of things they are the purveyors of.

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/big-bang-theory-creator-mocks-sarah-sanders-appearance-christian-faith-in-show-credits

Democrat and Liberal policies and conduct are currently unsupportable and that's why I don't (and won't). They only need to return to the centre and stop trying to out crazy the crazies. Even if they could muster the will to behave in accordance with their own stated values I might relent. I don't know a lot, but on those topics I'm familiar with, the lies and manipulations are deliberate, repugnant and now occurring at a frequency I have never previously encountered. So yes, Trump is far and away the least dangerous choice IMO and he is getting a lot of stuff done despite deliberate, mindless opposition in the house. It's like the Democrats are actively working on his re-election efforts and I predict they will be successful in this regard.  

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, deicer said:

I believe this is in the wrong thread.....

We agree, it was def. in the wrong thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Wolfhunter said:

You can end the drawn out conversation at any time by presenting a viable alternative that isn't worse. I will even settle for a few ideas that aren't worse. How about political rhetoric that doesn't border on complete lunacy; I can even work with that. Even a bit of basic kindness would go along way; they could simply stop the fake expressions of indignation and outrage over the very sort of things they are the purveyors of.

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/big-bang-theory-creator-mocks-sarah-sanders-appearance-christian-faith-in-show-credits

Democrat and Liberal policies and conduct are currently unsupportable and that's why I don't (and won't). They only need to return to the centre and stop trying to out crazy the crazies. Even if they could muster the will to behave in accordance with their own stated values I might relent. I don't know a lot, but on those topics I'm familiar with, the lies and manipulations are deliberate, repugnant and now occurring at a frequency I have never previously encountered. So yes, Trump is far and away the least dangerous choice IMO and he is getting a lot of stuff done despite deliberate, mindless opposition in the house. It's like the Democrats are actively working on his re-election efforts and I predict they will be successful in this regard.  

While I agree with you that things have gotten polarized to the point of ridiculousness, when you say that Trump is the least dangerous I think that you are making a dangerous mistake with that thinking.

Let me explain.  

I get that people get fed up with politicians.  The dumbing down of the education system causes people to not want to engage with that which they don't understand.  This works into the hands of the 'elites' in that they can create the education system that benefits them the most.  One only has to look at the cuts that DeVos is doing in the U.S. and to the cuts that Ford is making and planning to make with the education system in Ontario.   Couple this with more sophisticated ways of manipulation, and you can see how it is easy to influence a population and/or election.

As the investigation into Trump winds it's way to a conclusion, the fact of the matter is that the population was manipulated though new and un-before seen ways through social media.  Scientists have researched this for decades and know that it works.  That is why Trumps cries of 'fake news' were so effective at first.  Trouble is, it is losing it's effectiveness as things drag out, as facts become uncovered, as indictments are handed out, and as convictions are handed down.

That and the average citizen is now starting to feel the effects of the 'Trump Policies', from the trade war, to wages being held back, and most recently seeing how they were duped by the tax cuts which is actually costing them more money.

Trump admires dictators and autocrats, and this is proven by him not going against Putin, and the House of Saud, even when his own intelligence services brief him on the realities.

People wanted, and want change, but they are confused about what they want.  This is shown by the polarisation of the word 'socialism'.  I present this article to clarify this point, and to highlight that the population wants change, but the 'right' doesn't like the fact that the change they want will take away their control.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-02-07/what-is-socialism-trump-s-closer-to-the-truth-than-democrats

When you get beyond the title, this sums up the article...

In his own effort to explain what he meant by socialism, Sanders did not invoke Karl Marx. Instead he spoke of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

 

In particular, Sanders pointed to Roosevelt’s great 1944 speech, in which he called for a Second Bill of Rights. As Roosevelt described it, the Second Bill includes a right to adequate medical care; a right to a good education; a right to protection against the fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment; a right to freedom from domination by monopolies; a right to earn enough to provide adequate food, clothing and recreation; and a right to a useful and remunerative job in the private sector.

Roosevelt contended that “economic security and independence” are essential to individual freedom. Sanders endorsed that claim.

Sanders also spoke of economic inequality, emphasizing the extraordinary wealth of the top one-tenth of 1 percent, and the distress and difficulty faced by those at the bottom.

In his words, “Democratic socialism means that we must create an economy that works for all, not just the very wealthy.” That means better access to health care, higher taxes on the wealthiest, better educational opportunities for all, and an effort to “put millions of people back to work.”

Reasonable people are drawn to all of those ideas. But please, let’s not call them “socialist.”

Roosevelt’s own goal was to save capitalism, not to overthrow it. As he once put it, “One of my principal tasks is to prevent bankers and businessmen from committing suicide.” He believed in what Democratic Representative Joe Kennedy of Massachusetts is now calling “moral capitalism.”

Roosevelt created the Social Security program. He insisted on a minimum wage. He fought to protect the interests of the working poor.

But FDR was firmly committed to private property and to free markets. He spoke of economic planning, and he even did a little — but he never embraced socialist-style planning.

The contemporary interest in “socialism” is (I think) mostly expressive. It is a way of raising the volume, pounding a fist and offering a signal — of saying, in shorthand, that the U.S. has far too much economic insecurity; that the current system is not working nearly well enough for millions of people; that incremental change is not enough; that bold thinking is in order.

Fair enough, and also true. But Roosevelt — the nation’s greatest progressive — was no socialist. Those who now favor large-scale change should avoid a term, and a set of practices, that have so often endangered both liberty and prosperity.

This brings us back to the article from The Atlantic I posted above.  It is showing that Trump is following kleptocratic principals in that he is trying to concentrate wealth and power.  If he was open and honest, he would have embraced the Mueller probe, released his taxes and proven everyone wrong.  

Instead he has hunkered down and tried to distract and obfuscate the proceedings.

If this is the kind of government you desire, then you have it.  If you feel it is better than the alternative, the we will disagree.

In the end, I think this is a humorous summation of where we're at.....

 

 

Corrupt Billionairs.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi deicer,

The education system and social media really have little to do with my immediate concerns.

The post national open boarders concept is simply a bad idea on its own merits, the new green deal is insane, immigration without integration doesn’t work, and thinking carbon taxation at $20/ton will get us to accord emission levels is unrealistic in the extreme. Where does all of this even come from? It simply makes no sense. Taking away guns from competitive shooters because criminals use guns makes as much sense as taking away your car because criminals drive while impaired or terrorists use them to attack crowds. A lot of it is simple arrogance. In short, we are following the same (or similar) course charted by Rome…. so, if by education you mean teaching more history and comparative history, then I agree.

And we don’t need to revamp the entire education system to recognize crazy when we see it either although I will certainly agree that the indoctrination process taking place in liberal universities has damaging potential. Inventing words like “white racial illiteracy’ and “racial intersectionality” to enhance inclusivity while thinking it’s OK to physically attack people who disagree or excluding them from the process for perceived cause (like the police at gay pride) stands in stark contrast to the original intent. Inclusivity is not achieved by excluding large numbers of people who disagree. And large numbers do disagree BTW. If the Democrats don't start reigning in the far left they can kiss the WH goodbye in 2020. People are watching the House closely and want to see an "administration in waiting." Instead, they are seeing this:

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tomi-lahren-the-democratic-party-is-absolutely-unarguably-out-of-its-mind

Any way, if you think running a country with rich business men who understand economics at the helm is bad, I would invite you to consider the potential effects of delegating the task to those with no subject matter expertise. You might end up with the notion that budgets can be trained to balance themselves. 

As for corruption, statistical manipulation, control of the media and outright lies, you need look no further than the PMO office. As is the case with handling most immediate threats, a good plan now beats a perfect plan later every time. The old notion of factoring the weather, terrain and opposing forces (metaphorically)  into your planning, seems to have become lost in translation and no revamping of an educational system can teach common sense and tactical acumen anymore than experience can be replaced by political correctness.

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IGNORING TRUTH !
 
It’s been a tough week in America for the truth.  While the hate Trump media counts all the President’s “lies,” the Democrat who replied to Mr. Trump’s State of the Union speech put three whoppers out there with no scrutiny whatsoever.
 
Stacey Abrams, who almost won the governorship of Georgia, told the world that the U.S. economy is essentially bad.  By every calculated measure, that is a false statement.  
 
Then Ms. Abrams stated that the federal tax cut has not benefited working Americans.  Not true.  An exhaustive study by the Cato Institute shows the average family of four pays about $3,000 in taxes less than it did before the cut.
 
Finally, Ms. Abrams contends that “voter suppression” is a huge national problem when there is not a shred of evidence to back that up.  In fact, Georgia had a near record turnout for the vote on Ms. Abrams’ candidacy.
 
Even though Stacey Abrams misled all who watched her speech, CNN’s Anderson Cooper said on the air that he liked her talk better than President Trump’s address.
 
The only thing that I can think of is that Mr. Cooper is a big fan of Jon Lovitz, the compulsive liar on Saturday Night Live.  Yeah, that’s the ticket.
 
Then there’s the border wall thing.  The left is saying it’s a fabricated crisis, that it’s fear-mongering by President Trump and his allies.  Hard to believe when tens of thousands of migrants are being bused to the U.S. border with the intent of illegally crossing into the USA.  And then there’s the tons of narcotics that are smuggled across the border by murderous cartels.
 
But no worries, mate.  It’s fear-mongering bunky.
 
Finally, late term abortion.  It was actually applauded in New York State by people who apparently believe that the vague category of a “woman’s health” is a valid reason to terminate a baby who could live outside the womb.
 
In Virginia, the governor there agrees with Adolf Hitler that even a birthed baby can be executed if the mother doesn’t want it.  The T-4 program in Nazi Germany killed an estimated 300,000 babies.  What’s the difference from the brutal idiocy coming out of Richmond?
 
There is truth in the world but it is now being obscured by fanatics who want to advance their political agenda at any cost - even if that means terminating infants alive in front of them.  What say you, Kamala Harris?
 
It is my job to tell you the truth so here it is - too many Americans are more than happy to accept lies and turn the other way while bad things happen.
 
That kind of national attitude will lead to disaster.  It’s just a matter of time.
 
 
 

93D0D863-CA9E-4952-8C45-D14D92873C51.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And also Fox News. Host evidently has no concerns for others.  You have to wonder if he feels that the chef who prepared his meal should enjoy the same latitude?  Will future guests on his show refuse to shake hands, I know I would.

Fox host says he 'hasn't washed hands in 10 years'

Fox and Friends host Pete HegsethImage copyright Getty Images Image caption Pete Hegseth said not washing hands helps him to inoculate himself

Fox News host Pete Hegseth has confessed on air that he has not washed his hands for 10 years because "germs are not a real thing".

Speaking on Fox and Friends, Hegseth said the infectious micro-organisms did not exist because they could not be seen with the naked eye.

"I inoculate myself," added the Harvard and Princeton graduate.

His confession came after co-hosts Ed Henry and Jedediah Bila made fun of him for eating left-over pizza.

"My 2019 resolution is to say things on air that I say off air," Hegseth added.

 

His comments were met with both support and concern on social media.

Presentational white space

The US-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says regular hand washing "is one of the best ways to remove germs, avoid getting sick, and prevent the spread of germs to others".

According to a scientific study published by the US National Center for Biotechnology Information, one gram (0.03oz) of human faeces - about the weight of a paper clip - can contain one trillion germs.

Bacteria that can be spread by unwashed hands include salmonella and E coli.

US President Donald Trump - who has given more interviews to Fox than any other major network - has admitted on several occasions to being a germophobe.

In his 1997 book, The Art of the Comeback, Mr Trump wrote: "One of the curses of American society is the simple act of shaking hands, and the more successful and famous one becomes the worse this terrible custom seems to get.

"I happen to be a clean hands freak. I feel much better after I thoroughly wash my hands, which I do as much as possible."

One BBC reader, Steve M, said: "I didn't think I would ever say this - I agree with Donald Trump on this!"

"It would seem that attending Harvard and Princeton might provide knowledge, but obviously not any sense."

Most reactions echoed the same mix of disgust and confusion regarding the Fox host's behaviour.

Another reader, Jean Di Francis, noted how selfish Mr Hegseth's lack of sanitation is: "As a person taking prescribed immune suppressing drugs, I deplore Mr Hegseth's lack of hand washing because I'm very susceptible to the germs he carries and leaves wherever he touches."

Some noted that being too obsessed with hygiene could also be a bad thing, by possibly lowering one's natural resistance to germs.

But, as reader Kevin Cook put it: "Not washing your hands at all for 10 years strikes me as reckless disregard for other people's health."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Dem's great, green gift to Donald for 2020.....

Quote

'She out-Suzuki’s Suzuki. She out Naomi’s Klein. If Al Gore had wed Jane Goodall, and Elizabeth May presided at the ceremony, eventually the world would have cheered the nativity of someone very likely to grow up as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Captain Marvel of the Green movement.'

It is the Trojan Horse of the progressive social-justice warrior left.

It doesn’t quite swing like “Lock her up” but it might sell just as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, deicer said:

This is why the republicans hate her, she's exposing them....

She is indeed, and exposing the demarcation line between her vision and their's in the process. A gulf not easily traversed by operators with ropes, carabiners and knots with simple names like "bowline on a bight".

Can I assume you are in favour of her "new green deal?" 

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The utterly unbelievable scale of U.S. debt right now

 
‎Today, ‎February ‎15, ‎2019, ‏‎5 minutes ago | Tristin Hopper

This week, the United States national debt ticked above US$22 trillion for the first time, an amount equivalent to $67,000 per U.S. citizen.

The U.S. federal government owes more money than any other institution in the history of human civilization. And it’s just getting worse. According to the Congressional Budget Office, in only 10 years the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio will be higher than any point since the Second World War.

Below, a few factoids about just how eye-wateringly, bone-chillingly large the U.S. debt has become.

U.S. debt is now higher than the combined market value of the Fortune 500

13x046_7c41_9.jpg?w=640&h=417

Apple’s enormous market value is dwarfed by even a year’s worth of U.S. debt accumulation.

The Fortune 500 list includes all the recognizable titans of American business from Apple to Amazon to Exxon-Mobil to the list’s ranking 500th spot, the uniform and laundry company Cintas. Taken together, they basically constitute every major consumer, media, industrial and entertainment product in the United States. If you are the average westerner, the Fortune 500 is responsible for most of your wardrobe, your diet, your home and your leisure pursuits. The sheer size of Amazon alone is difficult to picture: Millions of products, thousands of employees, hundreds of buildings. And yet, add up the market values of all 500 companies and it’s equivalent to just $21.7 trillion. Thus, even if the United States nationalized the most profitable segment of its private sector and immediately auctioned them off for cash, it would still have $300 billion owing on its debt. (This would also destroy the world economy. Don’t nationalize things to pay off debts, everybody).

Just with the money it spends on interest, the U.S. could run Canada or Mexico

13x175_1503_9.jpg?w=640&h=426

Mounties, just one of the many things the U.S. could fund with the money it spends on debt servicing.

Holding a $22 trillion pile of debt is not cheap. Although the United States benefits from ludicrously cheap interest rates on its treasury bills, in 2019 it will spend $383 billion just to service its debt. By 2023, interest payments are expected to be larger even than the U.S. defence budget. Even now, $383 billion dwarfs the entire federal budget of Canada. Even at a time of its own unprecedented government spending, Ottawa will burn through the equivalent of only US$254.35 billion in 2019. This means that, merely with the money it uses to service the debt, the United States could run the entire Canadian government and still have enough left over to run most provinces. And if the Americans don’t feel like running Canada with their debt servicing money, they could also run Mexico. Their southern neighbour has a federal budget of only $291.5 billion for 2019.

All the gold ever mined would only pay off the debt accumulated under Obama

13x075_0a55_9.jpg?w=640&h=426

Pictured: A fortune in gold that would probably only cover a few hours’ worth of U.S. debt accumulation.

U.S. debt has been steadily climbing ever since the Sept. 11 attacks, but under Obama it was sent into overdrive. Not all of this was Obama’s fault; the Great Recession, ongoing Asian wars and a boom in entitlement spending on retiring Baby Boomers all helped swell the tab. But still, in eight years of the Obama presidency, the U.S. national debt jumped from $11.1 trillion to $19.85 trillion. Coincidentally, this $8.75 trillion debt surge is the same as the combined value of all the gold ever mined. Every nugget pulled out of the Klondike, every ounce plundered from the Aztecs, every gold bar leach-mined out of Australia: It all adds to about 190,040 tonnes or 6.7 billion ounces. At the current per-ounce price of about $1,300, the world’s goal hoard would be just enough to pay off the U.S. debt accumulated between 2009 and 2016.

Debt from one Trump term could pay for another WWII

normandysupply_edit.jpg?w=640&h=491

U.S. war material is loaded on to Omaha Beach after D-Day.

President Donald Trump, meanwhile, has only accelerated the Obama-era debt accumulation. In the 25 months since Trump was inaugurated, his administration has overseen a $2 trillion increase to the debt. Given current conditions, that figure is likely to surpass $4 trillion by the end of Trump’s first term. According to the Congressional Research Service, $4 trillion also happens to be the inflation-adjusted cost of U.S. involvement in the Second World War. And let’s take a moment to remember how expensive that war was for the United States. American forces led efforts to defeat two major military powers simultaneously while spearheading the greatest military industrial buildup in history. Every single automotive factory in the United States was retooled to produce equipment for the government. Total wartime aircraft production was almost 300,000, with the Manhattan Project alone costing the modern-day equivalent of $22 billion. At the time, the U.S. contribution to World War II was the most shockingly exorbitant expenditure of resources ever seen, with government spending in some years of the war being equivalent to more than 50 per cent of GDP. But now, an extra $4 trillion in debt is simply budgetary routine.

One year of debt could pay for everything NASA has ever done

apollo_15_flag_rover_lm_irwin-1.jpg?w=64

One of several things NASA has done with its $1 trillion accumulated budget over the years.

Since 1958, NASA has landed six manned missions on the moon, sent 26 probes to Mars, launched 135 shuttle missions and blasted two spacecraft into interstellar space. And that’s just its space stuff: NASA has also spent years dominating aircraft and earth science research, including some of the most critical data confirming the existence of anthropogenic climate change. Add it all up, and the combined cost for 61 years of NASA is an inflation-adjusted $1.16 trillion. For context, over just the last 12 months (from Jan. 31, 2018 to Jan. 31, 2019), the United States piled up an extra $1.5 trillion in debt.

Jeff Bezos’ fortune would cover only 34 days of debt accumulation

13x161_745a_9.jpg?w=640&h=426

Jeff Bezos.

There’s a lot of talk lately about how rich people should pay more taxes. However, given the sheer scale of U.S. spending right now it would take an awful lot of these extra taxes to come close to running a balanced budget. For example, consider Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, the richest man in the world. His net worth is roughly $136 billion. Right now, the U.S. adds another $4 billion to its debt every day. Thus, if Bezos gave his entire fortune to the U.S. government, it would only cover 34 days of debt accumulation. And this is just new debt. If Bezos’ fortune was used to cover all U.S. federal spending, it would run out in only 11 days. Bezos is one among 26 billionaires who collectively control $1.4 trillion – a wealth equivalent to that owned by nearly four billion of the world’s poorest. Still, even that $1.4 trillion would only cover a year’s worth of U.S. debt accumulation and about four months’ worth of federal spending overall.

In one year, the per-household share of the debt could buy a new car

13x234_2034_9.jpg?w=640&h=413

The Nissan Versa isn’t a glamourous car, but it would be a new car nonetheless.

According to its most recent census figures, the United States has 118,825,921 households. This means that the $1.5 trillion in debt accumulated over just the past year is equal to about $12,605 per household. This would be just enough for every single household in the United States to buy a brand-new Nissan Versa. When accounting for the total $22 trillion debt, that per-household share jumps to $185,000, enough to buy a new Ferrari or Bentley. The per capita share of the debt is particularly dramatic when compared to the U.S.’ northern neighbour. As recently as the 1990s, Canada was so debt-ridden that it was considered one of the worst economic basketcases in the G20. Today, per-capita Canadian federal debt is equal to US$13,588.51. In the U.S., the same figure is nearly five times higher at $67,000 per American.

The U.S. just built history’s most expensive warship. It cost five days’ worth of deficit.

13x084_5a68_9.jpg?w=640&h=426

The USS Gerald Ford at its official commissioning in 2017.

The USS Gerald R. Ford, an aircraft carrier commissioned in 2017, is the largest and most expensive warship ever built. For context, HMS Dreadnought, the super-powerful 1906 battleship that revolutionized naval warfare, only cost the modern equivalent of about $273 million. For 2019, the U.S. budget deficit is expected to be $897 billion. This means that only five days’ worth of deficit would be enough to fully cover the cost of the USS Gerald Ford. And the deficit merely represents new instances of the government spending money it doesn’t have. Total debt accumulation is even higher, since the existing debt continues to balloon on its own if it’s not being paid off (and the Americans haven’t even tried to pay down their debt since 2000).

The vast majority of this is entitlement spending

13x106_1037_9.jpg?w=640&h=426

A doctor writing a prescription, the cost of which may or may not be piled on to the U.S. national debt.

It would be tempting to assume that the United States is piling up all this debt because of big, tangible budget items: Battleships, fighter jets, highways, disaster relief, etc. But the majority of U.S. spending is eaten up by cheques: Millions of relatively small-denomination cheques handed out as entitlement spending. The U.S. government will spend $4.4 trillion in 2019, of which only $3.5 trillion will be covered by tax revenues. Of that $4.4 trillion, $2.7 trillion is spent on what is known as “mandatory spending”: Social security, Medicare, Medicaid and the like. As a result, much of the expansion in U.S. spending is due to factors beyond the government’s control: Higher healthcare costs and more retired Baby Boomers collecting pension cheques.

This is all happening during good times
Throughout U.S. history, periods of massive debt accumulation have usually coincided with bad times: The Great Depression, the Civil War, etc. By any economic measure, however, the United States is currently doing fantastic. Major foreign wars have been stepped down. The jobless rate is at a 49-year low. Economic growth has been topping four per cent. The last time the U.S. economy was this good, the federal government was running budget surpluses to pay down the debt, rather than piling up debt faster than ever. The implication is that when the boom inevitably ends, U.S. deficits are set to explode even faster. “The economy is going well and we are looking at deficits that are four per cent of GDP going forward,” Congressional Budget Office director Keith Hall said in late January. “That is an unusual thing.”

• Twitter: TristinHopper | Email: thopper@nationalpost.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this