Are you talking about yourself discussing the budget? Yes - yes, and I am sure there were a number of people in Rome for 2,000 years that pointed to the sky and declared society was falling. This is a strawman. I never said anything was fail proof. What I didn't do is declare the half dozen most desirable and wealthy nations on the earth were all on the verge of sudden foreseeable doom and collapse. Yes - I understand. When the USA, PRC, Canada, UK, Germany, France and Poland all collapse - the "welfare programs" will the least of the worries, the chief worry will be satisfying the alien over lords so they do not enslave us after conquering us.
No I am talking about you. You think it's appropriate to be snarky and condescending? Even if you perceive me to be, which I reject, that is an appropriate way to conduct yourself? And I am sure people like you were at the end saying it would never happen. Those people were wrong. Talk about a strawman. I never said those countries were on the verge of sudden foreseeable doom and collapse. I never prognosticated the hour. Though I don't think their welfare states are sustainable in the long term. I don't think a $37 trillion dollar debt and $1.3+ trillion dollar deficits are sustainable. We are presently spending 13% of the budget on debt service. What happens as that figure grows larger and larger? What services get pushed out to service it? Then you have higher interest rates because the risk of default grows and the debt service grows larger. It snowballs on itself. You and @HP3 can't articulate a best case left wing fever dream scenario to get the deficit below $1 trillion. Even with a perfectly executed wealth tax [which will never happen], closing various tax loopholes the wealthy use, slashing the military budget by 10% [which neither party has any appetite for] and raising the corporate tax rate to 28%. But, no, according Nook, it will be fine, there won't ever be a reckoning.
Again - look in the mirror and how you post - especially on this topic. Again - it is lost on you, when it took Rome thousands of years to fall, were those people wrong or were the fools prognosticating the sky falling wrong? If it isn't in the relative short term - then it really isn't worth worrying about. Countries eventually evolve and sometimes fall - without or without programs for the poor. Yes - please let me know when you intend to discuss the MASSIVE trillions or dollars in tax cuts that Donald Trump has already given the wealthiest Americans, and continue in his newest budget. Also - please discuss how his budget, even with cuts to programs to help poor Americans STILL is adding trillions of dollars to the deficit. When you bring equal energy to all culprits, then people will take you remotely serious. Nope - you don't get to now play "either party". Right, I will worry about it once USA, PRC, Canada, UK, Germany and the whole of first world society collapses in the foreseeable future because @HTM has it on his bingo card. Thanks for the good laugh though. I haven't had someone claim that the entire power structure in the world is on the verge of collapse since my mentally disturbed client told me that Aliens were building a colony under his home.
Of course it is relevant. In fact, it was you that mentioned that it matters how the people made their fortunes.
Even if my behavior was poor, that's an excuse for poor behavior on your part? Things that aren't in the short term aren't worth worrying about? Jesus. That is exactly the problem. Politicians only think in 2/4/6 years terms and kick the can down the road until it explodes under someone elses foot. Debt and deficits are massive issues that have significantly contributed to the collapse of many countries/empires/civilizations. You can't even begin to articulate a plan whereby you can "tax the rich" enough to make the math work. So, of course, you just punt on it. How convenient for you. Again, strawman, didn't say that. No surprise that is the quality of client you command.
Lol I gave you data, facts and arguments with valid sources and examples and something that most respected economists are in favor of. Dont give me this BULL ****. You stopped responding to me. The fact is you liked getting cucked by corrupt billionaires and would let people die in the name of a deficit and debt you have no understanding of to begin with.
You never even got the deficit below $1 trillion dollars even if we indulged your wildest fantasies regarding increased taxation and spending cuts [which aren't going to happen]. Is a $37 trillion dollar debt and $1 trillion dollar deficit sustainable?
I've already given you a response, why would you let perfect be the enemy of good? Nothing is perfect in life, especially public policy, but over time things get better as you refine them and gain more knowledge. Why would you let people die when you dont have to??? And why would you not try to do anything about it???? You simply dont want to, you like the way the system is.
Your response is inadequate. Your response doesn't make the United States fiscal situation sustainable. Your response, given the best possible outcome, still leads us to ruin in the long term. $1 trillion dollar deficits are not sustainable. I don't want anyone to suffer. I don't want anyone to die. But I recognize a LOT more people will suffer and a LOT more people will die when this system collapses under the weight of itself than if we actually address the issues now.
Why about a liberal dummy? Supporting a clown like Harris. You lost to Trump which is pathetic. That's how sad the liberal party is
You keep repeating “$1 trillion deficits are unsustainable” like it’s new insight, but this exact doomsday script has been playing on loop for decades. People said the same thing in the ‘80s, in the 2000s, during the Obama years, and after COVID spending. Every time, it’s “collapse is imminent,” and yet — here we are. Still the largest economy in the world, still issuing debt in our own currency, still standing. Your message isn’t analysis — it’s fatalism. You shout about collapse but offer nothing concrete to prevent it. Where’s your math? Where’s your proposal? I’ve laid out a balanced approach — revenue reform, closing loopholes, modest cuts, economic growth. You’ve delivered fear and a shrug. And let’s not pretend your “I don’t want people to suffer” line means much when your implied solution is gutting the programs millions rely on. You don’t get moral high ground while waving around a butcher’s knife. If you’re serious, bring a plan. Otherwise, you’re just another doomsday preacher yelling at the wind.
My man you're a good dude, but there is no logical basis for you to think the way that you do. You have no good reason to hate Harris more than Trump. If can give me a fact based argument over why she's worse than Trump, I'll listen.
You are as well. Have complete respect for you. To start I dislike them both. Obviously she isn't the president so it's tough to evaluate her against Trump. I didn't like the fact that she couldn't put forward any policies until the very end of her campaign, seemed completely clueless until she was forced upon the public because Biden was forced to step aside, by all accounts nobody likes her or wants to work with her, ect...Those would be my focal points. Like I said, I can't stand Trump. Also, admittedly I didn't vote in this election. I couldn't stand either candidate. Harris just would never check any boxes. I know Trump is a fake piece of garbage. I can see through it. Harris portays herself as something that she isn't. I view her in the same light as Trump. She's out for herself. Doesn't care about anyone else.
