Well, during a Republican administration, anyway. As soon as a Democrat is president it’ll become a crisis. Again.
I don’t know if it’ll ever be paid down to 0, but I’d like to see us start heading in that direction. The lower the debt, the less we pay out in interest on that debt. It gets us some breathing room if there’s a downturn and revenue declines. And even if it’s not paid off in my lifetime, that’s okay; the sooner we start the easier it’ll be, and I expect the nation to outlive me.
You say you want to cut taxes and spending? Fine, spending first. You eat your vegetables before you get dessert. You mow the lawn before you go golfing. You do your homework before you watch TV. Do the work first, you can reward yourself after.
The post I responded to was about “the debt”, not “debts”, and no, I don’t think we pay off “the debt”. Sure, we refinance individual “debts” from time to time, paying off the old creditors with money borrowed from new creditors, but the trend line is for more and more public debt. “The debt” keeps growing and growing, not getting smaller by paying it off with taxes.
No, they don’t. We’ve cited the figures in this thread which show that what you believe isn’t true. This is the reason why people think you’re a low information voter. People tell you facts and you just ignore them.
I’m intrigued by your plan and would like to hear more details. Has this been fleshed out in more detail anywhere, or is it just an idea in your own head?
Do you think elected Dems could agree to $550B in spending cuts, including SS & Medicare?
Let’s consider my economic interest in this question: I support spending to have a strong defense as well as: not hurting seniors by rationing their heath care or reducing the Social Security that keeps many off the streets; foreign aid programs that put the US in a leadership position in the world and address scourages like AIDS; I like roads and bridges that are smooth and also improving infrastructure with new technologies; and support a tax system that would generally pay for these things except during unusual times like war or recession.
As far as I can tell, you want to be able to afford a fancy new grill or home theater system every year.
The way I see it, you’re looking at what you can get out of the deal and I’m looking at what the country can get out of it.
Now wait a cotton-picking minute! I thought with the standard deduction going way up to $20,000 for a married couple, that your itemized deductions would have to exceed $20,000 before they counted. Most folks aren’t going to be itemizing anymore as far as I can tell.
The problem with “cuts to Medicare” is that that conflicts with an important progressive goal: The public should afford medicine and medical services to all. Instead of cuts to “Medicare” we need cuts to unnecessarily high medical costs. This is the subject of another thread.
If by “cuts to Medicare and SocSec” you mean means-testing, I say no. Means-testing just adds red-tape and increases opportunity for fraud. Give everyone, rich or poor, the benefits of SocSec and Medicare but make payroll taxes less regressive.
And adopt my idea, which increases, in effect, minimum wage but as a benefit rather than burden to employers of low-wage employers! Let the first $15,000 of income be exempt from payroll taxes (both employee and employer portions). The shortfall in revenue should be made up with a carbon tax.
I’d like everyone to be able to afford a fancy new grill or home entertainment system. Sure, there’s an aspect of my support for tax cuts that’s motivated by what it does for me personally, but there’s also an aspect of it motivated by my thinking that it’s better for the country if more Americans get to keep more of what they earn. As hard as it is for your side to understand sometimes, there are decent people on both sides doing what they sincerely believe is best for the country.
The ignorance of economic principles by both politicians and the public is the single most frustrating aspect of observing politics for me. It utterly kills me that people think Trump is responsible for this economic boom. We’d have had one regardless of who was president. The stage has been setting since 2008.
Trump’s policies are a disaster for the American economy. Tax cuts at full employment just cause inflation, a bubble in equities, and a bigger deficit. His trade policies are, honestly I can’t even bring myself to talk about them. And he’ll be out of office when the rent comes due and it will be blamed on the Democrat who’s in office. I think the stage is being set for a one term Democratic president whose supposed stewardship of recessing economy will keep the Republicans in power for the proceeding decade. God it’s so depressing. Fyi I’m a former Republican.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. My side has a hard time understanding that the other side has good people?
I posted a substantive response why I disagree with exactly what you’ve argued several times - $190 billion is debt is a good deal because you got $2,000 out of it - and you turn it into “why is your side so mean!” pout session.
Look, I’m not the guy who starts a thread every ten days to stick it to the other side as large, to say nothing of the other insulting things you’ve said about liberals.
I’ve said this before in many contexts, I bet you’d be a fun guy to watch a football game with or whatnot. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with your politics.
