The feeling is not mutual, but would like to see you on the front lines of a protest right before. . . . Nah, you wouldn't have the guts.
John Oliver did a piece last week about the "mass deportations" and the TRILLIONS of dollars this will cost.
I am all for doing something about our National Debt.... it is getting out of control But it needs to be done smart and slowly. Crashing our economy and massively devaluing the dollar is no way to fix anything.
Nonsense. There’s zero evidence crypto will soar if the $ weakens. This is something crypto bros have been claiming for years, but so far crypto mimics the market and general economy. And what exactly is the $ weaning against? We live in a global economy. If our economy crashes, so does the global economy. Finally, Musk’s fortune is heavily tied to Tesla stock’s price. People are not going to be buying expensive cars if the economy crashes.
Musk's plan to crash the economy to save it is ludicrous. We're growing at 2.8%, unemployment is low, and inflation is 2.4% and dropping. What's the need to crash anything? Especially the gigantic mess Musk and company are proposing. It's Great Depression potentially catastrophic, and last time that happened, it took a World War to truly help us recover. Why is the Musk plan catastrophic? Simple. It starts with Trump's 20% tariffs on all imports, raising prices and inflation. Add in the mass deportation and we'll have massive labor shortages which will add to the inflation. Meanwhile, we'll have an additional 8 million open jobs from these deportations. And who knows how many more will be laid off because 8 million less people with paychecks will drop demand significantly, meaning less need for workers. Meanwhile, Trump's no tax on tips/SS/overtime will greatly increase the pace Social Security will become insolvent as the government collects less monies. And COLA adjustments on SS will only hasten the problems. This is just the tip of the iceberg. As stated, we live in a global economy. If the US crashes, the world likely follows. And in the end, just how much of the Trump/Musk agenda will make it through? Because if the crash happens, it will be a blue wave in 2026, and a D landslide in 2028...unless of course, Trump suspends all national elections.
With the market as high as it is right now I see some withdrawals or realignments prior to the election. I had a small TD account of 16K that I just cashed in. I’ll deposit it in a CD. My 401 is in a guaranteed annuity that pays me and/or my wife x amount until we pass. It’s guaranteed income unless the world goes to crap then all bets are off.
$100,000 borrowed in the name of each citizen is not “getting out of control”. It is absolutely out of control. Add in that approximately half those don’t pay taxes and it’s ridiculously out of control.
Let's clarify a couple of points here. 1. Neither Trump, nor Musk, have said they want to "crash the economy" (Musk simply allowed for the description to stand, in an interview, when presented some anon's subjective, vague characterization of "the markets will tumble" or something along those lines, rather than quibble about what short term discomfort might mean). 2. Musk is not an elected official, and we'd be looking at basically a cabinet level position, with what amounts to advisory input; Congress still controls the purse strings, and and any budget cuts would have to be approved by Congress; 3. What Musk is actually proposing, is 2 Trillion dollars in cuts to spending--that is, he's proposing that we *borrow 2 trillion dollars less* than we are borrowing, in order to stem our out of control spending. Elon Musk $2 trillion federal spending cut: What's in the plan? Note--per the linked article, our current spending for '24 is: $6.75 trillion. Much of it, borrowed (our revenue is approx 5 trillon). Reminder: our national debt stands at almost 36 TRILLION DOLLARS--our GDP, under 30. We need to make progress on this front, and no matter what anyone says, it's not going to be pretty, easy, nor painless. That's pretty much all Musk was saying. 4. and final point--Musk is *proposing* aggressive cuts--neither he, nor Trump, will have authority to impose those cuts. ...and if were going to make any kind of progress on the debt, it has to start with thinking aggressively--because even aggressive thinking, will at best, procure meager movement, in the right direction. jmho/Fwiw.
FWIW, the Economist just endorsed Harris. “By making Mr Trump leader of the free world, Americans would be gambling with the economy, the rule of law and international peace,” the weekly newspaper said in an editorial published Thursday that endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris for president. “If The Economist had a vote, we would cast it for Ms Harris.” Liberal rag!
In the spring of 1981, shortly before the onset of the painful recession, most Americans were optimistic about their economic future. A Gallup survey at the time found that 48% of the public believed the financial position of their household would be better in the next 12 months. Another 35% believed it would stay the same, while only 15% thought it would get worse. The public also smiled on the newly elected president. In a May poll, nearly half of Americans said the Reagan administration’s economic policies would make their family’s financial situation much better (8%) or somewhat better (41%). Just 37% said Reagan’s policies would make their family finances worse. A year later, in September 1982, with the unemployment rate at 10.1%, most Americans were far from pleased with the state of the economy. A 54%-majority said Reagan’s policies had made their personal financial situation worse; just 34% said the policies had made their situation better. But even as the economy reached its nadir, the public did not lose all confidence in Reagan: In an October survey, a 40%-plurality said that over the long run the president’s policies would make their economic situation better, while a third said they would make things worse and 15% volunteered they would stay the same. Even as the jobless rate remained above 10% and the public experienced added economic pain, those predicting improvement in their finances greatly outnumbered those who anticipated a further weakening. In November 1982, more said their financial situation had gotten worse (37%) than better (28%) over the last year, but Americans believed their personal financial situation would improve over the next year by a 41%-to-22% margin. In March 1983, nearly half (46%) said their personal financial situation had gotten worse in the past 12 months, but the better-to-worse margin for the year ahead remained 45% to 22%. Reagan’s Recession Recession of 1981–82 | Federal Reserve History
Government spending increased during the recession. I thought they were coming up with a plan to decrease government spending? What benefits do you see from purposefully causing a recession?
It's not really "purposely causing a recession"--it's intentionally enduring a likely recession, to begin to adjust to slowing spending down. How long do you suppose we can continue to increase our national debt without painful consequences? We're already paying ONE TRILLION DOLLARS annually, in interest payments alone, to service the debt.
LOL! Are you being intentionally funny? Because that is exactly what Elon Musk is proposing--cut 2 Trillion dollars in government spending. (I know that figure sounds--heck, IS--Draconian--but as I posted above, the approach has to be aggressive, or the results will be capped at less than meager. You're going to get far less than what you're asking for--so ask for a @$#$% load, that the little progress you do make (get) be as high as you can get).
