Res Ipsa wrote:Every month that goes by will set a new record all time high for the national debt until Congress balances the budget. No one, Republican or Democrat, has reduced the debt for decades.
But Trump said he'd not only reduce it, but abolish it during his tenure.
Res Ipsa wrote:Every month that goes by will set a new record all time high for the national debt until Congress balances the budget. No one, Republican or Democrat, has reduced the debt for decades.
But Trump said he'd not only reduce it, but abolish it during his tenure.
White lies, and all that jazz.
He'll probably try to abolish it the way he often "abolished" debts he owed during his business career, by simply refusing to pay them, and, when sued over them, settling out of court with a payment that was a small fraction of what was originally owed.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
So Trump will not be able to play his favorite 'Get Out of Debt Free' card.
What's next, then? 'Fake Debt'?
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Chap wrote:Unfortunately, a country cannot go bankrupt.
So Trump will not be able to play his favorite 'Get Out of Debt Free' card.
What's next, then? 'Fake Debt'?
Are you familiar with the 90s when filing for bankruptcy was a pretty attractive option for people willing to manipulate the system. It didn't look much different than theft to me. I saw one family file bankruptcy 3 times within a 10 year period. Their lawyer advised them to max their credit cards out before they filed. Instead paying several million in debt each time, they were subject to getting their name in the paper. But I remember liberals contending that it was just a way of helping people out. In their opinion they were good laws. How do you view such laws Chap?
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
ajax18 wrote:Are you familiar with the 90s when filing for bankruptcy was a pretty attractive option for people willing to manipulate the system. It didn't look much different than theft to me. I saw one family file bankruptcy 3 times within a 10 year period. Their lawyer advised them to max their credit cards out before they filed. Instead paying several million in debt each time, they were subject to getting their name in the paper. But I remember liberals contending that it was just a way of helping people out. In their opinion they were good laws. How do you view such laws Chap?
Yet you show you really don't care by voting for a guy who was good at filing bankruptcy many times. Lets help out those rich guys.
ajax18 wrote:Are you familiar with the 90s when filing for bankruptcy was a pretty attractive option for people willing to manipulate the system. ... I remember liberals contending that it was just a way of helping people out. In their opinion they were good laws. How do you view such laws Chap?
Yet you show you really don't care by voting for a guy who was good at filing bankruptcy many times. Lets help out those rich guys.
A bankruptcy law is widely recognised as being a necessary and proper part of a good commercial law system. It enables businesses in a hopeless position to be closed down efficiently, and lets others acquire their useful assets, and hopefully make better use of them.
But like all good laws, it can be and has been abused - in much greater measure, we should say, by businesses rather than ajax18's evil welfare-sucking families.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Chap wrote:A bankruptcy law is widely recognised as being a necessary and proper part of a good commercial law system.
I'm not saying it's not. I'm just getting at ajax's inconsistencies.
Oh, me too. I did not mean to give the impression of criticising your post. I was just joining in after you.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
I love the disingenuousness. Bankrupt. Default. Insolvency. But, fer sher, teknikaly shpeeken, a country can't be bankrupt. Huuuuurr.
God. Smug.
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
ajax18 wrote:Are you familiar with the 90s when filing for bankruptcy was a pretty attractive option for people willing to manipulate the system. It didn't look much different than theft to me. I saw one family file bankruptcy 3 times within a 10 year period. Their lawyer advised them to max their credit cards out before they filed. Instead paying several million in debt each time, they were subject to getting their name in the paper. But I remember liberals contending that it was just a way of helping people out. In their opinion they were good laws. How do you view such laws Chap?
Yet you show you really don't care by voting for a guy who was good at filing bankruptcy many times. Lets help out those rich guys.