all 39 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 92 points 7 months ago (5 children)

Bankrupting several casinos wasn't enough. Now he's in the process of bankrupting the US.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    The bankruptcy is incidental. The regime is extracting our taxpayer dollars to their pockets.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 7 months ago*

    I believe the proper technical term is "Corporate self-dealing". He will loot the entire country, causing trillions of dollars of damage just so he can pocket a few billions, leaving it in ruins, just like Lampert looted and destroyed the SEARS company.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 68 points 7 months ago* (4 children)

    Sounds like we do have plenty of money that could be used for healthcare, public transit, affordable housing, etc.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 57 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

    "We’re fighting wars. We can’t take care of day care, It’s not possible for us to take care of day care, Medicaid, Medicare -- all these individual things. They can do it on a state basis. You can’t do it on a federal.”

    The America First administration ladies and Genleman

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 47 points 7 months ago* (4 children)

    Hey look, our Social Security is about to be becoming insolvent. The post office has got serious financial problems. I have an idea let’s spend $1.5 trillion extra on the military.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 47 points 7 months ago

    The post office doesn't have financial problems. It is a service, not a business. It's not meant to generate profits. The UPS/FedEx boards are pushing this story to try and gobble it up to end to the competition and jack up your mail costs.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 7 months ago

    Does the FIFA peace prize mean NOTHING to him?

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 7 months ago

    Seems a lot for a country that doesn't want to go to war.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    We could have had universal healthcare and education...

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    The US government already spends about $3T per year on healthcare. The issue has never been that there isn't enough money for it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago

    By switching to a universal healthcare system, that cost could be much lower.

    Healthcare costs in the US are bloated because of for-profit and privatized healthcare systems, as well as insurance middlemen taking huge cuts to keep billionaires' bank accounts bloated.

    By socializing healthcare, eliminating profit motives, private equity, and insurance CEOs, and allowing the government to negotiate prices, those costs could be brought down significantly.

    No other country in the world pays rates nearly as high for healthcare as in the US. The US government would save money by making it universal. But that would hurt their billionaire oligarch donors' bottom lines...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    The base budget for the Pentagon in 2015 was almost a trillion dollars less than what is being asked for here. Two years of this could fund the forgiveness of all student loans, the expansion of Medicare to include dental and vision and the lowering of the age of Medicare eligibility to 60.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    With these new raids on the blue states, the rising coat of oil and the coming recession it will be all deficit.

    Maybe he shouldn't be trying to destroy the his best state economies and rather trying to get his red states to perform better.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago

    This increase is more than the cost of Medicare

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    I love how the richest nation on this planet continuously acts like it's so poor.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago

    There's alwaysmoney for guns and bombs, isn't there. I would say it's amazing but it's been many years since I was amazed to realize this.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago

    Sounds like something to have shutdown over, cut off military spending for a few months. I'm all for it.

    Blame the Democrats? Damn Skippy. You can have a little money when you start behaving yourselves, and clean up your mess.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago
    [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    And it is not worth it, they can't even hold the straigt of hormus open and they can't defeat the Iran...

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump-class_battleship

    In a press conference in December 2025, U.S. president Donald Trump announced a United States Navy guided-missile warship, to be called the Trump-class battleship.[5][6][7][4] The class is also known as BBG(X)[a] in some Navy documents,[1] and is intended to initially consist of the lead ship USS Defiant (BBG-1) and an as-yet unnamed other vessel. If and when commissioned, the class is envisioned as adding a nuclear-capable cruise missile option to the U.S. Navy surface fleet.[8]

    The Trump administration intends to revitalize shipbuilding in the United States alongside the construction of the Trump-class. Analysts have expressed skepticism about the Trump-class battleship, citing its lack of funding, unprecedented design, and high development costs. Its classification as a battleship is debated, as it lacks the heavy armor and large-caliber guns typical of historical battleships. The naming of the class after an incumbent president has also broken traditional conventions.

    The U.S. Navy has not had a battleship in commission since the retirement of the last Iowa-class battleship USS Missouri in 1992.[9] There have been no plans for new ones since the cancellation of the Montana class in 1943.[10]

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/USS_Defiant_BBG-1_graphic_1.jpg

    It's not just a battleship with guns, it's a battleship with pre-dreadnought-style armament, a secondary non-centerfire battery, in 2026.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-dreadnought_battleship

    These battleships were abruptly made obsolete by the arrival of HMS Dreadnought in 1906. Dreadnought followed the trend in battleship design to heavier, longer-ranged guns by adopting an "all-big-gun" armament scheme of ten 12-inch guns.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    Military-Industrial Complex go brrrrrrrr

  • source