So government grows and we finance it on the back of future generations. This bill had greater Democrat than Republican support in both houses of Congress. This even though Republicans control both houses. The Stupid Party, as the great Sam Francis called it, earns its name yet again. What exactly do they do other than maintain the Democrat agenda? Oh, I guess they did allow us to export oil. Hurray! A victory for the ages.
I sort of agree. I think the issue is that the Republican party has been promising to do things that 1) they don’t really want to do (for political reasons), 2) they sometimes can’t do (even if they wanted) and 3) that they often don’t really believe in.
From what I have read, many (maybe most) of the Republicans that voted no supported the bill behind the scenes, but want to maintain the fiction to their electorate. Ryan has said publically that if every Republican that hoped the bill passed would have voted yes it would have passed without Dem support.
The GOP has created a monster in its own base by publically supporting policies that they don’t really believe in. The base is finally catching on, and Trump is the result. But, and here’s the rub, Trump doesn’t believe in most of that stuff either! They have made an ugly bed for themselves, that is for sure.
Yeah, and I tire of hearing people complain about the people who could support Trump. It is the people in power in both parties who have created the fed-up group of people who are looking to someone like Trump for answers. Whether or not he has the answers remains to be seen, but the blame for Trump’s rise lays with the Republicans for not doing what they have promised, and with the Democrats for doing exactly what they promised.
Anyone frustrated with Trump has only the President and do-nothing Republicans to blame.
This whole “we finance it on the back of future generations” narrative is so mioptic. When I was born over six decades ago, U.S. federal debt held by the public as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), was about 115%; today it is less than 80%. I consider the debt incurred by my parents as an investment in my future. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States
It is completely understandable to me that there would be disagreements about what investment to make. Some people might take a purely economic viewpoint based on financial cost/financial benefit - while other people might take a values based approach that includes considerations that are not easily expressed in monetary terms. Some people probably attempt to use some sort of weighted combination of these two approaches. But I cannot understand people who view government expenditure as essentially a legacy of wastefulness rather than as an investment in the future of our children.
The short of it is no party has been willing to have an honest discussion about if you want this we have to cut (enough! and not just you opponent’s stuff!) this or raise taxes.
I haven’t looked at the US budget in a few years, but I’m sure the proportions haven’t changed much. Basically military spending is about 30% of the budget, entitlements about 45%, and the remaining 25% cover everything else the government does. The hard facts are you know how cutting the first two (where the savings really are to be had) will go politically and cutting much of anything of the last 25% will:p quickly impact day-today operations of the Federal Government.
You can’t have your cake and not pay for the ingredients…and all parties are guilty in some form or another of the proceeding statement.
Ironically the last time we did manage to balance the budget was under Clinton with a Republican controlled House and Senate.
It was telling to me in an earlier thread when someone said that the Republicans were no longer in opposition to the Democrats. That may work in a Parliamentary government like most of those in Europe where the party that wins the representative body gets to fill the executive posts. In that case if there is a deadlock like has basically been the case for the last 6-10 years; you call new elections. Here however our system works on principled compromise not outright opposition for the sake of it.
Government spending is not an investment. Government produces no product except war, which is not a good. When government borrows today it takes away from resources today. Money today that could be invested is instead spent on something wasteful like a grossly overpriced toilet seat.
The percentage of the GDP measurement is not very useful when you have a fiat currency. The government gets the Fed to print money to cover its debt. GDP and other numbers rise due to inflation. This masks the real effect of the deficit spending on the economy.
If deficits don’t matter why stop at 80% or 115%? Why not be really generous to the future generations and go into debt 500% of GDP?
The unfunded liabilities of the US are not accounted for. When these liabilities become due the US either has to renege on its promises or print money thus taxing us by inflation.
The US’s ability to play this deficit game will not go on forever. It is all going to blow up. It is true we have gotten away with it for a while, but I’m very confident we face a bleak economic future. My parents and grandparents generation who allowed this to happen escaped seeing the misery their short sightedness will cause. But the trouble will come.
Balanced if you consider borrowing from Social Security revenue to finance current spending balanced. Such methods are illegal for private businesses.
it was different back then, though. Gingrich was the Speaker of the House and had a lot of power to keep his party in line. He and they ran on the “contract with America”, and that was shortly after Reagan had been president. And, too, Clinton was not inflexible and doctrinaire like Obama is. He was willing to take credit for “ending welfare as we know it” even though he probably didn’t like it.