ActivismEconomyGovernmentMilitarySocial IssuesUS PoliticsWorld Politics

Why It Matters that Trump Hoped for a Nation's Failure

Updated on May 25, 2016

Trump is trying to twist the subject -- again. He's trying to claim that Hillary took him to task for just doing business as usual and taking opportunity when it arose. No, not really, she took him to task for explicitly stating... no...HOPING for the housing bubble collapsed so he could make a profit. His response concluded with "I'm a businessman, it's what I do!" Which brings me to the point of Wall Street Regulation and business regulation in general, and a glimpse at our tumultuous relationship with it.

Trump is right, he did what business people all do, seek opportunity and seize it to gain profitability. It is their job, he's right about that, and I have no problem with that. The problem comes in when one hopes a little to hard and begins to create opportunity where people suffer so they can make a further profit. There were BILLIONS secretly bet on the collapse in the stock markets. $40B alone by a single company. What happens when business is betting on the failure of the nation and will make more profit on those bets than our success? Literally betting on us to fail so they can rake in the dollars? We saw the devastating results of that under Bush, results we all know could have been much worse without the safety nets of the last lesson in the 1920's and 30's. We don't need to find out again.

It is how business used to run in the early 1900's, and don't get me wrong it was still far worse than today in many ways; it was an unprecedented failure and has never worked well for the population in general causing untold suffering in a number tangible of ways. We are dangerously close to experimenting deep in that realm again today, and it's foolish to think results will be any different.

There are Republicans out there who want to make it worse, to re-test all those bad theories. Those that wish to eliminate a minimum wage and if an employer wants to pay you $1 an hour, well find another job. If all the employers want to pay you $1 an hour, well you're just a crappy negotiator, it's your fault. There are Republicans who have promoted reducing or even eliminating child labor laws -- because children need to work too especially since they're smaller and we can pay them less because children are notoriously bad negotiators. You shouldn't get overtime, benefits packages are destroying business profitability, and vacation takes away from your employer... all issues we're being forced to relitigate today because of Republican support.

Today, as Trump runs for president, we're to trust that Trump, who is notorious for these types of practices -- hoping for collapses, under paying illegal workers, getting sued for running a scam university which could land him with a federal indictment eventually if legally confirmed as a scam and he took federal loan and grant money for students -- will not seize opportunity in the Oval Office to advance his interests when he's shown already deplorable ethics in his business practices? We're supposed to trust business whose impact on our government we have had growing concerns about now for several decades is going to suddenly develop more concern for our interests if we give them the Oval Office? We've lost our minds.

We're supposed to believe Trump will do the right thing? Just like Dick Cheney did when he didn't seize opportunity to advance his Halliburton stock laughing all the while he drove us straight into Iraq carrying our own WMD -- corporate greed? We argue today that our means of departure was Obama's fault -- even while we ignore it was Bush that signed the agreement to remove all troops and he did it just months after the oil fields were again opened to foreign contractors. In June 2008, Iraq invited foreign bids for support projects to their oil fields for the first time since the early 1970's when the system was nationalized. By September Bush was suddenly negotiating a Status of Forces Agreement to remove US forces from Iraq, an agreement he signed in the very sunset of his presidency on December 14, 2008.

I'm less worried about what kind of fools the Republican party is taking us for these days and far more worried about what kind of fools we're willing to be for them to ram through practices and policies we know are dangerous for the US all for a bloviating mouthpiece who has never shown even an iota of real concern for the success of our nation or our people beyond his own profit margin.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • ahorseback profile image

      ahorseback 10 months ago

      Except your whole premise that this is coming from the republicans is wrong , Trump is an independent , sky jacking the GOP party because ........ the GOP has imploded , and now you're going to imply that the other party is better ....how ? Hillary can't blow away a 74 year old socialist curmudgeon with -O- legislative accomplishment in the polls ? No matter the slant , there should be an outsider president , sending an unbelievable message to congress , and that is both parties !

      Everyone's already heard the "Never Trump " speech , save it for November...........

    • Pragmatic Politic profile image
      Author

      Pragmatic Politic 10 months ago from United States

      Well, firstly, Trump, regardless of his personal affiliation, has run for and all but gotten the GOP nomination at this point. So they own him, even though so many seem to be wanting to distance themselves from that reality even as they argue they'll vote for him -- like you just did. Republicans, if there are any real ones left, can stay home in "Protest" at this point, or choke on their own tongues and vote for him knowing the dangers he poses, or they can try to dump Trump at the convention -- may be the only thing that saves the party, yet they don't seem to have the ability to break away from their brainwashing at this point.

      Either way, the GOP will have to haul themselves out of the dumpster, maybe they won't be so deep if they lose this and the climb out will be a little less ego-destroying.

      Secondly, Hillary has pretty much blown away Sanders by millions of votes with Sanders only getting 42% of the raw vote count. The problem with both sides, you love basing your opinions on whomever gets the most media noise.

      And I generally don't take party sides because I am happy for good ideas from anyone and prefer to base support or disdain on specific issues, but there is a painful dearth of any valid ideas out of the GOP these days forcing me to say, at this point in time, yes the Democrats are the better party because at least they have ideas, disagree with them or not, they offer material to work with and debate over. To that point though, I suspect Sanders would make as poor a president as Trump, even though he at least has something to offer the conversation beyond egotistical bloviating.

    • ahorseback profile image

      ahorseback 10 months ago

      I am disgusted with the dynasties in politics of late , even trump the celebrity . American voters need to mature up and take back control of both parties or eliminate them both and go all out for the best man [woman ] period , then stop hiding behind rhetorical naiveté. The housing boom was bound for bust - to suggest Trump caused it - kinda lame . ...... you might blame the Clintons just as much .

    • Pragmatic Politic profile image
      Author

      Pragmatic Politic 10 months ago from United States

      No one is saying Trump caused it. If you're unable to have a discussion based on what people are actually saying rather than put words in their mouths, you should probably stay out of the discussion. You look foolish, but worse, you waste my time.

    • ahorseback profile image

      ahorseback 10 months ago

      Like THIS discussion , totally one sided in origin although the norm for the left , Is the real waste of time ! Isn't this about where you have someone" flagged "because they disagree with one sided presentations ? I know, I know , as a liberal I'm supposed to agree with you .

    • Pragmatic Politic profile image
      Author

      Pragmatic Politic 10 months ago from United States

      *yawn*

    • junko profile image

      junko 10 months ago

      Trump's hope for economical failure for working and underclassed Americans shows the true face of uncontrolled Capitalism. Trump University is an example of a Capitalist taking advantage of the Federal Government's Educational Plan to help Americans. The Housing collapse was, Capitalists extorting Federal Housing Loans, Guaranteed from Big Brother. A Capitalist has no love of country or countrymen, just money. The chickens are coming home to make it great again, lead by The Fox.

    • Pragmatic Politic profile image
      Author

      Pragmatic Politic 10 months ago from United States

      Junko, *any* form of government/economy has it's risks and failures. Why the Republican party has become convinced that capitalism is free of such risk is beyond me. The idea that corporations have morals and ethics and inherently will do the right thing is among the dumbest government concepts I can think of.

      Trump has show us if it is better for him, he'll do it no matter who it hurts. Now Republicans believe, some how, giving him endless power will turn corrupt narcissism and greed into something positive. They're out of their minds.

    • junko profile image

      junko 10 months ago

      Uncontrolled Capitalism is unsustainable and if not controlled will cause an economical collapse and the fall of America. The Governmentlessness the last 7 1/2 years on Capitol Hill has invited the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. Everything in moderation, too much liberalism socialism communism conservatism capitalism and racism can be not good for a nation. The American people still need the jobs they were promised if Republicans could win the House and Senate in the 2010 midterm elections. Jobs tax collections, and financial reform, and then we can have our country back.

    • Pragmatic Politic profile image
      Author

      Pragmatic Politic 10 months ago from United States

      Last 7 1/2 years? Try the last 15. :( I agree on the moderation issue. We need to strike an ever moving balance, what I have called "blended government" in the past. The best of ideas, implemented and adjusted in the best ways possible. In a perfect world you don't have the constant tensions of various factors pushing for their benefit over others, in this case at this time, corporate interests. The pendulum is starting to swing back again, I just hope it doesn't swing as drastically to the left as it did to the right this last round.

    • junko profile image

      junko 9 months ago

      I wrote 7 1/2 because that's how long Obama has been President. Governmentlessness has never been as big a problem as it has been during The Obama Presidency in the history of The United States Government. President Bush was the Decider and Chief and the House and Senate worked to bring bills and laws to the floor of the House and Senate all 8 years of his Presidency. They refused to work with Obama on anything, thus no work was done since 2010 and law maker elected since Obama has no experience in lawmaking, they just collected benefits and pay for doing nothing.

    • ahorseback profile image

      ahorseback 9 months ago

      That's because America looked at an image of a well dressed and articulated man and voted him into office without qualification # one !

    • Pragmatic Politic profile image
      Author

      Pragmatic Politic 9 months ago from United States

      articulated? Well yes, I guess the human body is articulated. I think you meant articulate. So now you argue, on the basis Obama had NO qualifications despite having been a state and federal level elected official for some years, but Trump, a member of the corporate elite we all claim to be concerned about taking our country from us and zero experience in running a government (much different than a corporation by the way) is a better choice?

      I won't point out the number of scams and fraud corporations he's tried to run. I won't point out he's currently being sued by two states for defrauding their citizens with a fake university. I won't point out that could result in a real federal investigation if it's found he defrauded students out of federal FAFSA loans and Pell grants. I won't point out this man has grown a property conglomerate that has willingly allowed the hiring of illegals at slave wages and worked them for unethical hours 6 to 7 days a week. That this man has epitomized all that concerns us about the link between corporations and our government and that you think the best idea out of the three remaining available candidates at this time is the guy who comes from all that. Oh wait...sorry did i just mention all that? There's more if you want.

      I suspect you worry to much about what others are thinking and far less about doing your own thinking.

    • Pragmatic Politic profile image
      Author

      Pragmatic Politic 9 months ago from United States

      Junko, I would say the great recession that started in 2007 kind of proves you wrong. The trillions we're going to spend paying for Iraq because congress fell over backwards for one guy who thought the idea passing tax cuts, making them deeper, and then codifying them again and again during a time of war for the first time EVER was a good idea.

      There was no functioning government. There was a lock step party holding power in two, later three branches, who clearly didn't have a clue how a government should work.

    • junko profile image

      junko 9 months ago

      Pragmatic, the house and senate governed as a lock step party ,, no doubt but they WORKED to bring an economic collapse starting in 2001 thru 2007. Do you not agree that since 2008 and without a doubt 2010 there has been unprecedented governmentlessness ( work stoppage ) in the house and senate. The great recession of 2007 does not prove me wrong about what I wrote about The Obama Presidency. Read and understand before you disagree.

    • Pragmatic Politic profile image
      Author

      Pragmatic Politic 9 months ago from United States

      They worked yes, but what they did, did not work. Therefore, government did not work through that period either. If you really want to argue that direction, Republicans have worked very hard to create parliamentary bulls**t they could blockade on, e.g., the SCOTUS nomination, just as they created it during the Bush years -- one year managing to stop 95% of the Democrat's bills in the Senate.

    Click to Rate This Article