Trump predicts a ‘massive recession’ but intends to eliminate the national debt in 8 years

The Washington Post ^ | April 02, 2016 | Bob Woodward and Robert Costa

[Hojczyk]

Donald Trump said in an interview that economic conditions are so perilous that the country is headed for a “very massive recession” and that “it’s a terrible time right now” to invest in the stock market, embracing a distinctly gloomy view of the economy that counters mainstream economic forecasts.

The New York billionaire dismissed concern that his comments — which are exceedingly unusual, if not unprecedented, for a major party front-runner — could potentially affect financial markets.

Over the course of the discussion, the candidate made clear that he would govern in the same nontraditional way that he has campaigned, tossing aside decades of American policy and custom in favor of a new, Trumpian approach to the world.

In his first 100 days, Trump said he would cut taxes, “renegotiate trade deals and renegotiate military deals,” including altering the U.S. role in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

He insisted that he would be able to get rid of the nation’s more than $19 trillion national debt “over a period of eight years.”

Most economists would consider this impossible because it could require taking more than $2 trillion a year out of the annual $4 trillion budget to pay off holders of the debt.

“I know the Wall Street people probably better than anybody knows them,” said Trump, who has misfired on such predictions in the past. “I don’t need them.”

[dsc]

“Doesn’t bring any back so that soundbite doesn’t work”

Tariffs on imports from those offshore factories—Hell, let’s call them traitor factories—together with a significant improvement in conditions for business at home will bring them back.

It’s nothing but enlightened self-interest.

[SJackson]

I doubt the level of fraud in medicare is 50%. And he and if it is, it’s not all in the 11% drug costs. I’m not suggesting he’s engaging in cynical flip flopping, or flip flopping for political gain. I fear he doesn’t know these things, and that his lack of knowledge is no impediment to his mouth. Whether his about faces are politically motivated or sincere correction of the record/his opinions is irrelevant. I suspect the latter, but it’s a terrible weakness for the office of President. He needs to fix it. Solutions for serious problems should be defensible on the facts, and not subject to finding out “fine is not so fine after all” in a matter of days. I know he’s going the have the finest and best advisors around, time to pick some economic advisors, sit down, listen and do his homework.

[SJackson]

Tariffs on imports from those offshore factories—Hell, let’s call them traitor factories—together with a significant improvement in conditions for business at home will bring them back.

Tariffs require Congressional action, at the very least in withdrawing from existing treaties. The President and administrative agencies have only very limited ability to impose tariffs, in reaction to specific violations by either trading partners or firms. Yes, there are violations. But he can't simply declare a tariff on imports from China. It implies a lack of knowledge of the legitimate functions of the legislative and judicial branches.

[dsc]

“I doubt the level of fraud in Medicare is 50%.”

I said “waste, fraud, and abuse,” not fraud alone, and I’ll bet those three things account for over 50%.

“I’m not suggesting he’s engaging in cynical flip flopping, or flip flopping for political gain. I fear he doesn’t know these things, and that his lack of knowledge is no impediment to his mouth.”

I find that refreshing. He is not reading carefully focus-grouped political brain barf off a teleprompter. He is speaking to us, and that is something no politician scumbag has done for donkey’s years.

I agree: I don’t think he had seen the figures on Medicare. However, when somebody takes him aside and gives him the facts, there is a chance he will come down on the right side of it. He has in past cases. None of his opponents will do *anything* that actually should be done.

“Whether his about faces are politically motivated or sincere correction of the record/his opinions is irrelevant.”

I strongly disagree. In the one instance he is dishonest, in the other honest, and further growth can be expected. That is what I am betting on, and hoping for.

“but it’s a terrible weakness for the office of President.”

Again, I strongly disagree. The terrible weakness among these candidates is being members of our depraved, despicable, criminal political class. All the other candidates—all of them—are loathsome, despicable, backstabbing, immoral filth.

“Solutions for serious problems should be defensible on the facts, and not subject to finding out “fine is not so fine after all” in a matter of days.”

Hey, this is probably the first time in his life he has heard anyone other than the left wing of our political class talk about issues, and he probably only listened to them with half his attention. He’ll be up to speed before the inauguration.

“I know he’s going to have the finest and best advisors around, time to pick some economic advisors, sit down, listen and do his homework.”

That’s right, and since that’s the only chance our republic has to survive, let’s pray that he is elected and does just as you say.

[SJackson]

We’ll have to disagree on some of these things. I’d prefer you be right. I don’t want Hillary and don’t want a failed Republican Presidency.

[dsc]

“Tariffs require Congressional action, at the very least in withdrawing from existing treaties.”

Well, golly gee, he’ll have a Republican senate and house. /Good-natured ribbing.

“But he can’t simply declare a tariff on imports from China.”

Reagan saved Harley-Davidson with a tariff on motorcycles, but I don’t know what the mechanism was. All I can find on the Internet are the moronic droolings of leftards intent on rewriting history. Here’s a sample: “Last spring, the import duties on large motorcycles were raised drastically. By any economic criterion, the new tariff is counterproductive, and the Reagan administration was fully aware of it. The decision is thus an interesting case study in the political economy of protectionism.”

And, again, “When President Reagan imposed a 100 percent tariff on selected Japanese electronics in 1987, he and the press gave the impression that this was an act of desperation. Pictured was a long-forbearing president whose patience was exhausted by the recalcitrant and conniving Japanese. (True) After trying for years to elicit some fairness out of them, went the story, the usually good-natured president had finally had enough. (Also true.)

Clearly these two imbeciles have no idea what’s going on. They make it sound like Reagan imposed the tariff by fiat. Is that false?

“It implies a lack of knowledge of the legitimate functions of the legislative and judicial branches.”

That’s okay with me. He’s not a political-class fewmet, so why would he have studied that stuff? Character is so much more important that one would be justified in saying that in this two-thousand and sixteenth year of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ nothing else matters in the least.

We must have a man who is a better man than the men in our repulsively immoral political class. Fortunately, that’s not difficult. To find a worse man you have to look at Jeffrey Dahmer and John Gacy.

[SJackson]

Usually these "non legislative" tariffs are authorized, under specific conditions, in existing legislation or treaties, which are also the law of the land. There are also various quasi judicial agencies which can impose punative tariffs like the United States Court of International Trade and United States International Trade Commission. Both over a century old. As well as international courts. But these would be over specific complaints, like dumping or theft of intellectual property. Neither they or the President can impose arbitrary tariff, there has to be a violation.

I looked up the Reagan/Harley Davidson tariff. Long time ago and I'm sure the treaties have changed. It was signed by President Reagan, but on the recommendation of the International Trade Commission, which determined that Harley Davidson was harmed by Japanese competition coming from four firms. The reason appears to be economic damage to Harley from imports, no charges of dumping. I don't know if that's still enough. It's important to note these are reactions to specific violations. Harley had to prove their case. The article notes US auto manufacturers made the same claim and lost. And there is recourse in US and international courts after the decision. Reagan signed it, but the action was undertaken by Harley and won in the ITC first. Not exactly a Presidential prerogative.

There's probably room for actions like this relative to China. There should certainly be a Congressional moratorium on news trade deals until after the election, but where there are substantial existing agreements, thinking NAFTA, it's a long struggle.

[dsc]

Thanks very much for the information.

“The reason appears to be economic damage to Harley from imports, no charges of dumping.”

I don’t know what was in the documents. I do know that there was a metric crapload of dumping going on, subsidized by the Japanese government.

If Trump needs specific violations, he will be able to identify them.

[WashingtonSource]

Because Congress went on a spending spree.