PeterS

>>snip<<

Look for the narcissist. The most obvious target in today’s lineup is, of course, Donald Trump. When he looks at a glass, he is mesmerized by its reflection. If Donald Trump were shaped a little differently, he would compete for Miss America. But wh**ever the depths of self-enchantment, the demagogue has to say something. So what does Trump say? That he is a successful businessman and that that is what America needs in the Oval Office. There is some plausibility in this, though not much. The greatest deeds of American Presidents — midwifing the new republic; freeing the s***es; harnessing the energies and vision needed to win the Cold War — had little to do with a bottom line.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430187/william-f-buckley-donald-trump-demagoguery-cigar-aficionado

JW

That is true but when the bottom line is not only red but has been for decades and continues to sink radically deeper, someone who knows what a bottom line represents becomes very necessary.

viking747

Trump will do a very good job in the White House. He belongs there and Hillary belongs in an orange jumpsuit. That Buckley comment would make great bird cage liner.

crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island

There have never been bigger narcissists than Bill & Hillary and the current occupant of The Oval Office. And busninessmen were far more prominent among the Founders than the socialists who dominate the Democratic Party today.

rebob14

Without a healthy "bottom line", the deeds you cite would have been still-born.

PeterS

The bottom line for Trump has always been bankruptcy. I find it funny that Cons look to Trump, who has repeatedly done the same thing, to somehow do something else once in office. Trump, who has never demonstrated any acumen in economics, is expected to learn on the job with the worlds largest economy. Sad, it really is.

As for "sinking deeper" growth in debt has been slowing down going from 10% of GDP in 2009 to 2.5% in today. Trump wants to do the very same thing as Conservatives have done in the past that has caused growth in debt every time it was tried--that is, cut taxes and increase spending. When Reagan and Bush tried it the result has always been a growth in debt. Will the third time be a charm or will what has always happened in the past happen again? My bet is the latter....

PeterS

Clearly you have no clue what the definition of narcissism is and the most prominent position among the founders was farmer who believed in a agrarian, not capitalistic, economy. Jefferson in fact, went so far as to instigate the Louisiana Purchase and than, as many of his predecessors did, give land away to settlers. Now if government were to give away land today what would conservatives call it?

JW

If the growth in debt is 1/100th of 1%, it still constitutes sinking deeper. As for reducing the growth in debt, we still aren't back down to were it was before Obama came along. You might want to educate yourself on the realities http://useconomy.about.com/od/usfederalbudget/fl/US-Deficit-by-Year.htm and understand how meaningless debt growth numbers are when comparing them to debt as a percentage of GDP. That link should be helpful and the page goes on down to reveal the whole story.

Obama has been a disaster. His debt growth and percent of GDP numbers are a disgrace. He is the worst debt manager since 1947. It took WWII to make things worse, another Democrat enterprise, BTW.