Donald J. Trump (For everyone else)
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
With Trump it's probably the point. He probably has oligarchs and human rights abusers in mind...or at least someone who has his ear does.
Obviously not everyone wants to move to the US, but hasn't the US been voted best country to move to for like 50 years straight according to immigration numbers?
It's larger and has much more available land than most countries, so more people will be attracted to going there than, say, Switzerland. Not that many Europeans (EU is similarish population size) would want to move there in recent years. Lack of any kind of working health care system is one huge deterrent.
I think basically only people who other countries are barring because they are criminals (like Russian oligarchs) would pay $5 million. Maybe some Saudis just trying to help Trump save face.
"Nobody is going to use this" is just not a good reason to oppose it. The first customer is going to pay for the entire setup cost of this system and it's pure profit after number two.
DOGE is failing to find enough quarters in the couch cushions to un**** our financial problems. Time to think outside the box, and selling someone what is ultimately a gold plated membership card to the meaningless, "I Have Too Much Money Club" is a great idea as long as the money goes to the proper place.
What does US Citizenship even provide to a rich person, beyond smoother world travel? I get why you don't want poors getting free and easy access to all of our social programs, but it's not like someone who paid $5M to get through the door is going to be scamming Medicaid, Section 8, and food stamps to add to the drain on our finances.
With Trump it's probably the point. He probably has oligarchs and human rights abusers in mind...or at least someone who has his ear does.
It's easy to imagine a situation where, if you aren't someone who we actually want in the country on an objective basis, then there has to be something in it for Trump, or for someone to whom Trump owes a favor. (I'm not really talking about something as crass as cash payments. Quid pro quo business arrangements would be far more likely.)
It's really just a much watered down version of the way that Putin deals with wealthy people in Russia.
"Nobody is going to use this" is just not a good reason to oppose it. The first customer is going to pay for the entire setup cost of this system and it's pure profit after number two.
DOGE is failing to find enough quarters in the couch cushions to un**** our financial problems. Time to think outside the box, and selling someone what is ultimately a gold plated membership card to the meaningless, "I Have Too Much Money Club" is a great idea as long as the money goes to the proper place.
What
I didn't say I oppose it. I don't care. It's still dumb. And it's probably a corrupt favor to Russian oligarchs.
Dumbo,
According to your "logic" deporting every worker in the entire country would instantly raise the GDP per capita and leave the management and ownership better off for it. It's breathtakingly dumb.
It's the level of critical thinking that we are dealing with these days. It's stunning to watch almost every time. Like I wonder how they get through the day without injuring themselves.
DOGE is failing to find enough quarters in the couch cushions to un**** our financial problems.
It was always absurd to think that the stuff that DOGE was focusing on would make a big dent in the deficit.
Time to think outside the box, and selling someone what is ultimately a gold plated membership card to the meaningless, "I Have Too Much Money Club" is a great idea as long as the money goes to the proper place.
I understand that every little bit counts, but even if 10,000 people paid the fee over the next five years (which seems very optimistic to me), that would only amount to $50 billion. I understand that those people also could end up paying taxes and generating jobs. But even so, this isn't going to put much of a dent in a five year budget that probably will be in the range of $35-40 trillion.
The USA already "sell" visas to rich people. Those are called EB - 5 visas
tldr is 2M of investment (less if in poor areas) and 10 employees and you get the VISA. Cheaper than Trump proposal.
The correct criticism of Trump proposal so would be that what he is going to propose *already exists* (and isn't used very much by foreigners).
Lefties might think America is a shithole but "edge of bankruptcy" is Republican fear mongering
There is no precedent in peace-time with low unemployment of such a structural deficit.
The accumulated debt isn't insane by any accounting (yet), but the trend is the worst ever in a civilized country in fiat money since recording began *given it's happening with over-average economic conditions*.
"technical bankruptcy" might never happen (because being fiat money debt you can always inflate your way out of it), but the reckoning will be disastrous
Given current economic conditions the debt/gdp ratio should be decreasing very significantly year over year, just by virtue of nominal GDP increasing a lot more than the deficit.
When the next recession comes and actual keynesian deficit will be needed you will understand how disastrous running such a big deficit in good times was.
I understand that every little bit counts, but even if 10,000 people paid the fee over the next five years (which seems very optimistic to me), that would only amount to $50 billion. I understand that those people also could end up paying taxes and generating jobs. But even so, this isn't going to put much of a dent in a five year budget that probably will be in the range of $35-40 trillion.
You're the last person on this forum I'd have expected such a shallow statement from.
Do you know how to climb a mountain?
Spoiler
One step at a time.
It took decades to get into this mess, and it's going to take decades to get out, but you don't make progress by sitting around waiting for magic jelly beans to fall from the sky.
Dang, Trump is Oompa Loompa orange today.
$10 trillion dollar tax cut ain't going to do it either.
There is no precedent in peace-time with low unemployment of such a structural deficit.
The accumulated debt isn't insane by any accounting (yet), but the trend is the worst ever in a civilized country in fiat money since recording began *given it's happening with over-average economic conditions*.
"technical bankruptcy" might never happen (because being fiat money debt you can always inflate your way out of it), but the reckoning will be disastrous
Given current economic conditions the debt/gdp r
If they raised taxes by 20% across the board the deficit would be eliminated.
It took me about 5 minutes of napkin math to figure that out.
I'm sure experts with all the time in the world to focus on this issue could get that down to 10% and make up the rest in the margins
Its certainly impossible to get there by slashing government programs by 1 trillion and reducing tax revenue by 1 trillion
You're the last person on this forum I'd have expected such a shallow statement from.
Do you know how to climb a mountain?
Spoiler
One step at a time.
It took decades to get into this mess, and it's going to take decades to get out, but you don't make progress by sitting around waiting for magic jelly beans to fall from the sky.
I specifically noted that every little bit counts. My point is that we are going to have to gore some very large and sacred cows if zero deficit, much less bringing the debt down substantially, is the goal.
If they raised taxes by 20% across the board the deficit would be eliminated.
It took me about 5 minutes of napkin math to figure that out.
I'm sure experts with all the time in the world to focus on this issue could get that down to 10% and make up the rest in the margins
Its certainly impossible to get there by slashing government programs by 1 trillion and reducing tax revenue by 1 trillion
Bold is obviously true but it has nothing to do with denying the problem is as terrible as it is.
I am not sure you realize what would happen to the economy with significant tax increases not matched by significant government expenditure increases. Aggregate demand would collapse.
There is no smooth path to achieve meaningful deficit reduction without causing economic disasters, that's the problem. There might be a narrow way to slowly reduce entitlements, and slowly increase taxes, that puts the country on a far healthier deficit trend if no big recession happens in the meantime. But it requires full bipartisan efforts.
Basically people on SS/medicare should pay higher payroll taxes, for longer, to get a tad lower benefits. that's what many european countries had to do (some more, some less) to try to improve the trend. France didn't and is on a terrible path similar to the american one.
Then you can also increase income tax to cover for the rest a bit better, and perhaps reduce defense expenditure a little (say 0.5% of gdp reduction over a full presidential term, something small).
But each and every one of these attempts at fixing the trend is politically toxic. You propose/enact it, you auto lose elections. And this is why the problem is terrible.
Only when things will become disastrous enough it won't be politically toxic anymore to try to reduce the deficit a bit, and who will end up with the shorter straw then will depend on the political equilibrium when the **** will hit the fan.
In most cases it's the masses who get financially murdered anyway. Medicare will require higher payroll taxes to qualify and will ration care more. SS will be available later in life for slightly lower benefits. Disability will be harder to get from SS. That's the normal path european countries went through.
And yes the upper-middle class will pay higher taxes while the actually rich won't
Bold is obviously true but it has nothing to do with denying the problem is as terrible as it is.
I am not sure you realize what would happen to the economy with significant tax increases not matched by significant government expenditure increases. Aggregate demand would collapse.
There is no smooth path to achieve meaningful deficit reduction without causing economic disasters, that's the problem. There might be a narrow way to slowly reduce entitlements, and slowly increase taxes, that puts the
Aggregate demand for what would collapse?
Your assumptions that balancing the budget would be politically toxic are ultimately just assumptions. I know of someone who specifically turned Dem after Clinton was able to operate at a surplus.
A small increase in taxes would likely amount to more money in peoples pockets than what is proposed. Not only more money, but better quality of life due to robust services
Cos of terrible health system in USA, it's probably near the bottom of the list for developed countries for most Europeans for countries you'd want to emigrate to, say.
I could be wrong.
I certainly would choose a dozen countries before USA. Canada for one!
The USA already "sell" visas to rich people. Those are called EB - 5 visas
tldr is 2M of investment (less if in poor areas) and 10 employees and you get the VISA. Cheaper than Trump proposal.
The correct criticism of Trump proposal so would be that what he is going to propose *already exists* (and isn't used very much by foreigners).
Just looked that up, too. As if he US would keep rich people out lol. The gold card just makes it less hassle for more money. If you can spend 5 mil for the gold card you can also pay people to set up the EB-5 stuff for you.
I don't oppose the idea of providing an expedited path to citizenship for people who are skilled in areas of great need (like some STEM areas).
But this Gold Card idea just seems dumb. It seems like the sort of thing that will mostly appeal to weathly retirees in turbulent areas of the world, not entrepreneurs.
Yes, and how did some or most of those people become so wealthy in such turbulent parts of the world, I wonder.
Cos of terrible health system in USA, it's probably near the bottom of the list for developed countries for most Europeans for countries you'd want to emigrate to, say.
I could be wrong.
I certainly would choose a dozen countries before USA. Canada for one!
Over a certain income level, the US becomes the best by far. But for median to up to 5x median and even further it’s not going to make top 10.
25% EU tariffs announced by Trump today is just going to accelerate portfolio selloff. I hope most of you adjusted accordingly.
We have all the initial indications of stagflation incoming. As someone who has lived through this before, it's not pretty. Buckle up.
Cos of terrible health system in USA, it's probably near the bottom of the list for developed countries for most Europeans for countries you'd want to emigrate to, say.
I could be wrong.
I certainly would choose a dozen countries before USA. Canada for one!
My nephew (one of them) lives in the US, his wife is American and my mother over here had to bung them $1,000 towards maternity care because that's an uninsurable risk over there. (And there's no entitlement to maternity leave, of course.)
