Death of A Nation DVD Advertisement

The Great Unmentionable

email Email

At the end of a bitter presidential campaign, there’s little discussion by either candidate of perhaps the gravest threat to our national security and continued prosperity. The nation carries a crushing debt burden of more than 20 trillion dollars, and current trends would only enlarge that debt over the next decade.

So why won’t Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton talk about it? Because they’ve both made proposals that would make the deficit worse, not better.

According to the non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, if either candidate’s budgetary and tax proposals were enacted in full, the debt would grow between 200 billion and 5 trillion more than current projections over the next ten years.

If either candidate offered a more responsible approach at the end of the campaign, rather than focusing on scandals about sexual conduct involving Bill Clinton and Mr. Trump, it might tilt the electorate toward the candidate talking constructively about the looming budget crisis.

email Email

Comments (6)

Leave a comment
  1. Nani  •  Oct 20, 2016 at 6:58 pm

    And Trump's wall, even if he gets Mexico to pay for it will necessitate a whole new government agency to run it, not to mention the cost of court challenges that will go beyond his presidency. This is part of the reason his supporters has shown NOT to be small government conservatives. They KNOW what the anti-Hispanic issue will cost and they simply don't care.

    • Jim Bird  •  Oct 21, 2016 at 10:55 am

      So continued non-vetting open border policy is written in stone. Ever other country on Earth (Western Europe has zero enforcement and will be the main battleground of WWIII) has strick border enforcement but because Obama and Hillary rarely follow the law and never do with illegal immigration, for some reason America has to give up our way of life. Merkel let in a million-man terrorist army to Germany last year. Those pesky 18 to 35 year old guys are killing cops and residents in West Berlin now driving them out of the city, raping German women while each of their several relatives are moving to Germany too. They have gun control there though which is a great thing and Germany is severely back-ordered on pepper spray for some strange reason that Merkel can't figure out. The police "no-go" zones (places where sharia law is practiced) is approaching 800 in Western Europe's largest, and small, cities now. Hillary has promised a 500% increase (somehow she has a secret vetting process for "Syrian refugees" (75% young men) who have no documentation that she articulated during a debate. But as you and Michael and Merkel would agree, Trump is the cause as to why the world hates America.

    • Rizzo  •  Nov 2, 2016 at 9:33 pm

      Umm… Moron… It's called border security. It's a primary job of a sovereign country.

  2. Dexter L. Wilson  •  Oct 21, 2016 at 4:27 pm

    Important: Former British Ambassador Craig Murray is an ally and friend of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and he visited Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy on Wednesday to discuss his ongoing plight. What Murray learned could have a huge impact on the 2016 election, if the American people are allowed to hear it.
    One of the main media arguments for people not to give credence to the hacked DNC, Clinton emails is that this is a deliberate attempt by Vladimir Putin and Russia to impact our electoral process. The narrative goes something like this; ‘Russia illegally hacked the DNC and are now trying to steal the election from Clinton. So Republicans shouldn’t use the ill-gotten information, the media shouldn’t report on it, and the American people shouldn’t pay attention to it. In that way, we’ll be standing up to the tinpot dictator Putin.’ The only problem with this is that it means we should all completely ignore the criminality and corruption at the DNC and in the Clinton campaign team! It’s a stupid argument, but it’s become so prevalent that even some conservatives are parroting it.
    Video: Watching WikiLeaks
    Here’s the thing… there’s no proof that Russia did any of this. They’ve never admitted to it, and our intelligence community has never proven it. It’s simply a theory that the media and the Clinton team have implied is fact.
    Well, Ambassador Murray is here to dispel the rumors and to clear the air. Vladimir Putin and Russia had nothing to do with hacks on the Democrats, nor with the release of the hacked emails.
    Here’s what Ambassador Murray had to say from his personal website:

    I left Julian after midnight. He is fit, well, sharp and in good spirits. WikiLeaks never reveals or comments upon its sources, but as I published before a fortnight ago, I can tell you with 100% certainty that it is not any Russian state actor or proxy that gave the Democratic National Committee and Podesta material to WikiLeaks. The claim is nonsense. Journalists are also publishing that these were obtained by “hacking” with no evidence that this was the method used to obtain them.
    The control of the Democratic party machinery deliberately to unfairly ensure Clinton’s victory over Bernie Sanders is a matter of great public interest. The attempt by the establishment from Obama down to divert attention from this by a completely spurious claim against Russia, repeated without investigation by a servile media, is a disgrace.
    The over-close relationship between the probable future President and Wall Street is also very important. WikiLeaks has done a great public service by making this plain.
    The attempts by the mainstream media to portray WikiLeaks as supporters of Trump and Putin because they publish some of Clinton’s darker secrets is completely illogical and untrue in fact. The idea we must pretend Clinton is a saint is emetic.But the key point is that WikiLeaks is a publisher. It is a vehicle for publishing leaks, and is much more of a vehicle for whistleblowers than for hackers. It does not originate the material. I have often seen comments such as “Why has WikiLeaks not published material on Israel/Putin/Trump?” The answer is that they have not been given any. They publish good, verifiable material that they are given by whistleblowers. They are not protecting Israel, Putin, or Trump. Nobody has given them viable material.

    Did you get that?

    Russia did not get/give WikiLeaks any of the leaked emails/data.
    The media says the info was “hacked,” but WikiLeaks has never said that the information was gathered in that manner. Meaning, it could have been leaked by a whistleblower.
    The same people who “stole” the Democrat nomination from Bernie Sanders are now trying to shift attention from their corruption to Russia.
    Obama and the media are complicit in both the corruption and the cover up of the corruption.
    WikiLeaks doesn’t have a “dog in the fight;” they simply publish the information that is given to them by whistleblowers.

    Ladies and gentlemen, please don’t buy the media/establishment spin on the WikiLeaks releases. This isn’t about Russia, or hacking, or anything like that –
    This is all about how the Democrat Party is corrupt, anti-democratic, and very likely criminal.
    This is all about how the media has been complicit, not only in the crimes of the Democrat Party, but in covering up their crimes as well.
    This is all about how liberals will literally do whatever it takes to win. In their minds the ends always justify whatever dastardly means must be employed to ensure victory.
    This is all about how the American people continue to have their rights stripped away from them by a bloated and corrupt government.

  3. Dexter L. Wilson  •  Oct 21, 2016 at 4:30 pm

    Also, see on You Tube "Clinton Cash", at Red Box rent "Hillary's America" and go to about the DNC voter fraud and the sending of people to Trump Rallies to create a disturbance.

  4. Brad  •  Oct 21, 2016 at 7:15 pm

    The National Debt is the topic, not wikiLeaks (although some of the other poster's thoughts are interesting).

    I'd like to see a good study of what the Reagan tax simplification and cuts did to the debt. We were greatly expanding the military at the same time (and maybe other spending so that Reagan could get a strong Democrat Congress to go along). The economy grew tremendously and the debt also grew. If the military spending had been flat and other spending was flat, what would the Reagan tax cuts have done to the debt? Remember the "peace dividend" that followed the fall of communism, especially in Eastern Europe? This happened during the short GHW Bush administration and benefits were fully realized during the WJ Clinton administration that did balance the budget (with the help of a stingy Republican Congress). So tax cut induced growth plus spending cuts (remember "welfare reform") was how we did it before.

    Here are my simple thoughts. Obama raised taxes on the top 5%. It did little if anything to slow the deficit, let alone reverse the debt. Growth has been anemic. Clinton would do more tax raising and has spending plans (free College anyone) that are "Yuge." How can this help the debt go down? No chance. The tax increases will have the same effect as Obama's tax increases (Zero). Her spending (if Congress can't stop her) will devastate this great country. Then the growing entitlement wave will hit us and we will have nowhere to turn. Trump claims his massive corporate and personal tax reduction will unleash 4% growth (not a crazy number). Growth is what we need and it is a powerful economic tool to get our budgets back in line. Also, our corporate tax rates are uncompetitive globally and drive companies like Apple to park their cash offshore and pay no US tax. We could tax that profit at a global average rate and bring that wealth back into the US for investment (jobs, etc. ) here. This is a no brainer, but only Trump is talking about it. This would help but I doubt it would solve the debt/deficit problem. Trump's tax reductions will do two things at the same time, lower rates but increase taxable incomes. How many people would like to pay 33% of $600,000 instead of 50% of $400,000? Its the same tax ($200,000). Lower tax rates but higher tax revenues. If the balance is right we will have a net benefit with the debt.

    Now for the truth. We cannot "tax" our way or "grow" our way to a balanced budget. Spending must be cut (strong growth means less cuts, but still we need to cut). But no one gets elected by promising to cut. Here is a question to ponder: if in two years something precipitates a debt crisis (no one will buy our bonds and so we have to balance our budget to be able to pay our bills) who would be the best president to take the necessary action, Hillary or Donald? I'd say Donald. He has run big businesses and he has a (somewhat ugly) history of cutting vendors who he considered to have not fully performed their services, and history with businesses dancing on the brink of bankruptcy negotiating to survive. He talks of using his check writing time to manage his business and make sure that everyone is doing what they said they promised to do. These big business spending control skills and instincts are what we need if Michael is right.

    I also want a president with the moral center to do the right thing in a crisis. I have no confidence at all in either Hillary or Donald. The best thing I can say about Donald is that his children seem normal and they seem to trust him, so maybe he's not "Biff" from "Back to the Future." I have not seen anything about Hillary that gives me a similar hope.

Tell Us What You Think

All fields required. The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this website you agree to accept our Terms of Use.


Listen Commercial FREE  |  On-Demand
Login Join
Advertise with us Advertisement

Follow Michael

The Michael Medved Show - Mobile App

Download from App Store Get it on Google play
Listen to the show on your amazon echo devices
Michael Medved's History Store Also available on TuneIn