Better to be wanted by the police than not wanted at all
Posted on 03/23/2016 2:45:59 AM PDT by Citizen Zed
America isn't broke. Nor is it on the verge of a government debt crisis (whatever "crisis" even means for a nation whose debt is printed in a currency that is both its own and the world's reserve). America is not in decay, and the last thing the U.S. should do is rashly withdraw from a dangerous world because of those mistaken beliefs.
This should be especially clear after the Belgium terror attacks.
Yet retreat is just what Donald Trump seems to be proposing. In an interview with The Washington Post editorial board Monday, Trump questioned the U.S. role in NATO and presence in Asia due to the financial burden they require:
[I mean, we pay billions — hundreds of billions of dollars to supporting other countries that are in theory wealthier than we are. … When you look at the kind of money that our country is losing, we can't afford to do this. Certainly we can't afford to do it anymore…. I think we were a very powerful, very wealthy country. And we're a poor country now. -- Trump]
Looks like we finally found something Trump is in favor of off-shoring: America's security.
Now, it's certainly legitimate to evaluate the mission and cost of America's overseas military commitments and posture. But that's different thing than scrapping our military alliances — or threatening to do so as some ham-handed budget negotiating tactic. Leading the free world, reassuring allies, and deterring aggression have little overlap with the skills needed to drive a hard bargain with a potential tenant in Trump Tower.
And yet, Republicans might give Trump's defense policy ideas more of a hearing than they deserve because of their persistent debt fears. After all, it's mainstream GOP economic thought that U.S. finances are precarious. How could they not be given the $19 trillion federal debt — $22 trillion if you include state and local government? These are figures Trump always mentions, as do many Republican politicians. They provide handy justification for arguing we can't afford to invest in science, repair and upgrade our infrastructure, or bolster wages for low-income workers.
But here's the thing: The U.S. is far from a poor nation. American households entered 2016 with a net worth of nearly $87 trillion, according to the Federal Reserve. To put that ginormous number in some context, China's private wealth has been estimated at $23 trillion. Even if you factor in America's debt-laden public sector and China's large state-owned companies, the U.S. still has a $45 trillion wealth edge.
There are other ways of looking at national wealth that also show America's riches. The value of U.S. intellectual capital has been estimated at around $9 trillion, with the value of the intangible assets — such as patents, copyrights, and general business methods — at nearly $15 trillion. And given Trump's appreciation of brands — he generously values his own at $3 billion — you would think the businessman would appreciate America's, which has been valued at close to $20 trillion.
Maybe all this wealth is one reason global financial markets don't seem so worried about the U.S. debt. Well, that and the U.S. tax burden being one of the lowest in the developed world. The dollar is strong, and interest rates are low, as are inflation expectations. None of this is to say the U.S. should be a spendthrift in either defense or social spending. Without entitlement reform, Medicare and Social Security will require massive tax increases to keep their promises. Yet Trump would leave them untouched, vowing implausibly to fix their fiscal problems through higher economic growth alone.
The U.S. isn't bankrupt. Our pockets aren't empty. We aren't a pauper nation.
But, of course, you can't promise to make America great again without arguing that it currently isn't.
I don't believe Cruz can get the nomination, certainly not in a first ballot, and probably not even at an open convention. My impression is that the establishment wants to generate an open convention and then nominate a "compromise" candidate because neither Trump nor Cruz will have a majority once delegates are free to change their votes. Do you think I'm wrong and that Cruz can win delegates over against Trump's 45% to 49% if Trump falls short of a majority? What path, as a viable alternative to Trump, would you recommend from here?
“Yet retreat is just what Donald Trump seems to be proposing.”
The author conflates “retreat” with securing our nation. The author is a tool of the GOPe. Does the author open up his yard to vagrants and criminals or anyone else that simply wants to come in?
Bulls**t
I’m forever getting by, where I should be prospering. I did very well during Reagan’s reign; and downhill from then as my income increased: taxes, fees, mo’ taxes, outrageous medical fees, dropdripdrip. What, 80% of the treasury’s take pays people not to work, ineffective war-engines, degrees in vaginal studies, and bloated sale rise and the foreign aid rathole.
I think your not old enough to remember 22% capital gains? $25 doctor visits for an ear infection? Private hospitals that offered 70% discounts for cash? Investment in public facilities and infrastructure (bridges) that were built to last a century instead of 20 years?
Those were the good old days.
Turn off Mark Levin, which I know this talking point has been has been parroted many times by him. I have a degree in Economics and an MBA so I can speak better on the subject than a D.C Lawyer and angry talk show blowhard. Smoot\Hawley did not cause the depression and it's debatable it even exacerbated it. If you'd like I can lay out facts and educate you. That The Great Depression was a series of coincident events not one event which caused an economic cratering
I’ll wager most of that ‘net’ in net worth is real estate.
There’s a math puzzle sometimes done to demonstrate government spending. If the feds confiscated all the wealth of the Forbes 400, how long would it take the feds to spend that wealth? Repeat the calculations for various xx % of the wealthiest Americans.
Is the economy today like the economy of the 20's? No, there was a lot more manufacturing of critical products here. So much so, that we actually exported quite a bit. The tariffs were designed to protect American companies from foreign dumping.
In today's world, what critical products are manufactured here at the capacity we were at in the 1920's?
So raising tariffs would result in three possible outcomes
1) Foreign countries refuse to supply goods here to avoid the tariff. This would also reduce their sales and diminish their ability to provide for their own government. In turn, American companies would have to start manufacturing the products here to meet demand, creating more jobs.
2) Foreign companies could continue to ship here and pay the tariff. Not the ideal solution for anyone, but it would be a source of revenue to reduce the deficit.
3) Since the tariffs will be an international negotiation, the countries in question could eliminate discussion of the tariff by opening their markets to U.S. trade goods and reducing the trade deficit.
Have yet to see how this plays out in contributing to a world wide depression, when we're in such a trade deficit now.
LOL!
Trumps point on NATO and the UN I suggest is that the other members need to shoulder a greater portion of the financial cost. If we only reduced our cost to 50 percent of each, there would be quite a saving.
This author is a loon. To say we aren’t bankrupt with what the deficit and debt and ever growing pension load, the US is in fact bankrupt. There are some who suggest we are worse off than Greece
Donald’s point because the author misses it is that The US used to be strong enough militarily and e onomically that people and governments came tos us. These days we go hat in hand...please buy our bonds yet again
What math do these guys use?
America isn’t broke.????
18 plus TRILLION dollars in debt?
Bridges in all states being condemmed and no money to repair them
Detroit operating with half its street lights out
Less people in the work force then in the past 50 years
More people on welfare then at anytime in the past 50 years
A part time economy instead of a full time economy.
Yeah, let the good times roll.................
I say we quadruple our National Debt!
I want free food and cars!
No, he doesn’t.
Unfunded liabilities $127 Trillion +
Weak article, starts from wrong premise and winds around thru convoluted arguments to reach a wrong conclusion.
Yes there are some good points in there, but none of them have to do with Trump’s plans. He has spoken of engaging other nations on a variety of issues.
Seems like maybe another example of the desperate lengths some will go to to make Trump look bad.
I heard a program on the radio actually criticizing Trump for not being “as rich” as Zuckerberg or Gates!
His best is in pointing out the isolationism Trump is planning as expressed Monday. Not many of his supporters replying on here are addressing that.
To me the crumbling infrastructure can’t be ignored; it is the most obvious sign that the “wealth” is just concentrated in a few hands, not the country itself.
Pet is ridiculous. He sounds like those guys right before the mortgage collapse. Nothing to see here.
This great nation has seen its middle class shrink by about 15% in the last 10 years, has a “reserve” currency only because all the rest are even WORSE, has a shrinking industrial sector, doesn’t have a new fighter plane on the drawing board for the first time EVER, has unfounded obligations hint: that means we can’t pay) of $90 TRILLION, has a drug sector that charges $80,000 a year for MS drugs because it is forced to virtually give them away in Europe, has shipped an Apple manufacturing facility of a HALF MILLION to China, has seen once-great cities like Detroit and Dayton shrink by 2/3 and 1/3 . . . .
Yeah, Pet, things are peachy. What a shill.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.