It’s almost as if cutting spending on things that are fractions of fractions of the budget (NASA, NIH, CDC, etc.) as a performance. Also while increasing the military budget “bigly” and then starting wars that cost more than the military budget would cause the debt to balloon.
Remember though, the only time the debt matters is when democrats are in power.
exalted985451 on
I can’t wait until my preferred political party wins and we can go back to deficit spending that is economically appropriate, morally defensible, and just plain the right thing to do. And any action we choose not to take against the deficit will be carefully measured and wholly prudent, and we won’t be just kicking the can down the road because… we just won’t, okay?
Own-Chemist2228 on
>Marc Goldwein, senior vice president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said the borrowing did not come from “a seismic global conflict, but rather a total bipartisan abdication of making hard choices.”
That may be a fair assessment, but it is very relevant that one political party has successfully branded itself as the party of “fiscal responsibility” while historically increasing the deficit as much as (or more than, by many measures) the other party.
The only way to address this is through hard choices, long-term planning, and discipline. None of that can even start without some *honesty* about what each party’s policies are contributing to the deficit.
I read somewhere else about how its “not as bad as China’s”. But to me, what is more important is what that debt is doing for the common man. I know someone who moved to a tier 2 city in China 2 years ago and in the last 2 years he has seen.
1. His energy costs go down 50 percent
2. A high speed rail line get built with a new bus service connecting the city to itself and other cities
3. New hospital built
And his rent is like 500 bucks for a really nice 1b1b.
StupidScaredSquirrel on
>Goldwein told the Journal that is “uncharted territory” and a “scary place to be.”
This is what happens when you let people rely on empirical data but no unifying theory still parade as a science.
The whole point of economics is to be able to model the economy in a way that you can predict what set of parameters lead to what. If you are only able to navigate in “charted territory” then you are no better than a lookup table.
copperblood on
No empire in history has been able to manage their debt long term. Yay us Americans who are about to find out what happens when you land in the upper right corner of the fuck around and find out matrix. We are so cooked!!
6 Comments
It’s almost as if cutting spending on things that are fractions of fractions of the budget (NASA, NIH, CDC, etc.) as a performance. Also while increasing the military budget “bigly” and then starting wars that cost more than the military budget would cause the debt to balloon.
Remember though, the only time the debt matters is when democrats are in power.
I can’t wait until my preferred political party wins and we can go back to deficit spending that is economically appropriate, morally defensible, and just plain the right thing to do. And any action we choose not to take against the deficit will be carefully measured and wholly prudent, and we won’t be just kicking the can down the road because… we just won’t, okay?
>Marc Goldwein, senior vice president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said the borrowing did not come from “a seismic global conflict, but rather a total bipartisan abdication of making hard choices.”
That may be a fair assessment, but it is very relevant that one political party has successfully branded itself as the party of “fiscal responsibility” while historically increasing the deficit as much as (or more than, by many measures) the other party.
The only way to address this is through hard choices, long-term planning, and discipline. None of that can even start without some *honesty* about what each party’s policies are contributing to the deficit.
Exhibit A:
[The One Big Beautiful Bill Act will cost $3.4 trillion over the next 10 years, and more than $4 trillion when accounting for additional interest owed on the national debt. ](https://bipartisanpolicy.org/explainer/what-does-the-one-big-beautiful-bill-cost/)
I read somewhere else about how its “not as bad as China’s”. But to me, what is more important is what that debt is doing for the common man. I know someone who moved to a tier 2 city in China 2 years ago and in the last 2 years he has seen.
1. His energy costs go down 50 percent
2. A high speed rail line get built with a new bus service connecting the city to itself and other cities
3. New hospital built
And his rent is like 500 bucks for a really nice 1b1b.
>Goldwein told the Journal that is “uncharted territory” and a “scary place to be.”
This is what happens when you let people rely on empirical data but no unifying theory still parade as a science.
The whole point of economics is to be able to model the economy in a way that you can predict what set of parameters lead to what. If you are only able to navigate in “charted territory” then you are no better than a lookup table.
No empire in history has been able to manage their debt long term. Yay us Americans who are about to find out what happens when you land in the upper right corner of the fuck around and find out matrix. We are so cooked!!