Which one of you geniuses of the economy will defend that statement? St. Croix? GaG?
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/12/us/politics/trump-stock-market-national-debt-fact-check.htmlIf you inject a cow with medicine the sick buffalo will get better!
A rising stock market creates a "wealth effect" something the libs have been crowing about themselves as the stock market has risen over the last several years. This "wealth effect" most certainly has an effect on the economy as people tend to spend more when they feel wealthy and optimistic about the future than they do during period of negative sentiment where people tend to "hunker down" and save their money.
Now if Trump had said what you "claimed" he said, it would be indefensible, as any idiot, even the clueless lefties here, know the stock market is not directly tied to the national debt.
This one really was too easy, next time you ask me to chime in as an "expert witness" by name please don't ask me to defend something that Trump never said. Let's leave that kind of crap to the likes of Hadji, fg or LTM&L.
Yes, they are both fruit! But, they're not the same! 
And, the old "trickle down" argument is a very very weak defense!
I think I see what you were getting at but you never finished the thought. So I'll say what you should have said: the wealth effect causes people to spend, which results in tax revenues that MAY be used to cut the national debt.
But the reality is that in order to generate tax revenues at the FEDERAL level -- the only way there could possibly be any effect on the National Debt -- people would have to sell some of their stock, thus creating capital gains tax revenues. There is no evidence this actually happens. In fact, as the article attached below states, there is ZERO evidence the wealth effect as it applies to the stock market exists at all. There is better evidence that the wealth effect in the housing market DOES have an impact on personal spending.
But even if the wealth effect existed in the stock market, most of the spending -- on things like cars, appliances and TVs -- generates only sales tax revenues, and they only exist at the local and state levels. Yes, the increased revenues to the businesses making the sales will create a minimal amount of Federal tax revenues but not enough to affect the National Debt in any meaningful way.
So basically, GaGa, what you just wrote makes you more like an "expert witless." You and Trump belong together.
You are correct that I did not finish my thought, I had a call come in and hit send before finishing my thoughts on the subject, but you did a reasonable job in finishing it for me, except for the fact that you and the author of your article neglected to mention that more cars, boats, appliances sold impact the entire economy as more boats sold also mean more boat salesmen, more boat repairmen, more people employed to make boats etc etc etc. which most definitely creates more tax revenue at every level.
Please note, I never tried to quantify this wealth effect or claim that it made a "sizeable" reduction in the national debt, only that it exists, contrary to what your BFF was trying to claim. BTW, how is it that you are giving BP a pass for completely mischaracterizing what Trump said? Could it be that you hate Trump more than you hate BP, and you hate him more than any regard for the truth that you might have once had?
By saying “in a sense” - he and you are completely and undeniably wrong. The only effect a rising stock market has on debt, public or otherwise is to increase it. Generally when the stock market and the economy are doing well, interest rates go up. That obviously has a very negative impact on debt. Dumbass Donnie thinks he can refinance the debt, but thats because he has zero understanding about how public debt works. Public debt isn’t like a loan from a bank (or in Donnies case from the Russian Mafia). Public debt is based largely on past, present and future obligations. Payments to social security, public contracts, Amtrak and the post office, for example. What Trump is thinking is something he is well known for in his business practices. He thinks that he can simply stiff federal contractors working on dams, bridges and roads, or not paying postal workers and other federal employees
Your theory about “wealth effect” is fallacious, as it has been shown time and time again that trickle down economics doesn’t work. I suppose in theory, if there is a lot more money in the economy it could conceivably be taxable, but it rarely ever is, at least on a federal level. There is no federal sales tax and the actual revenue from capital gains consistently stays flat. People with a lot of money tend to re-invest or hold and not sell just to have a ton of cash on hand. In short, a rising stock market has about as much effect on the national debt as a fly has on cracking your windshield.
Nice try though to try and defend a totally stupid statement by our fake president.