And the other side would say that if we cut welfare spending we'd have a reasonable debt to GDP ratio.

It's very much political and it's a joke to pretend otherwise.

solid_fuel 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

And if I didn't quit my job, I'd still be able to pay rent. Oh no, whatever is there to do in this situation?

You can play the twisty game but the fact is simple - if he didn't have the political capital to cut spending, then cutting taxes is irresponsible governance.

▲

alkonaut 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes "If" spending is cut or "If" taxes are not cut then you might have a balance.

But just implement balanced budget goals. Accept at most a deficit of 1% in the budget or whatever. Allow for a deviation from this to do QE but require a more qualified majority and limit to 1 year only.

Want to cut taxes? Fine - but don't do it with deficit spending. Want to increase welfare spending? Fine - but remember to then cut somewhere else OR increase taxes.

The fact that one side can implement large tax cuts funded by borrowing over and over (and still be elected again) is absolutely _crazy_ on a scale that is perhaps only rivaled by the healthcare system.

▲

watwut 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They can say that, but it will not be true. The tax cuts, plus new military spending and new ICE spending dwarf welfare they want to cut.

	▲	solid_fuel 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Plus however many billions to bomb Iran and another 400 million for that stupid ballroom, the mad king's spending is out of control.
	▲	bilbo0s 15 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		This. ICE is now larger and more expensive than the entire United States Marine Corps. Let that sink in. Not only that, we also seem to start a new war every 6 months. Demanding money for each one of them. SS/Pensions/Medicare seem to trend nowhere but up. And like Santa Claus the party in power keeps handing out tax cuts. We have to make a change guys. The old ways aren't working. We can't be distracting from the central problems by yelling "welfare!". That doesn't work anymore.

▲

bilbo0s 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is kind of the point though.

Cutting welfare spending will get us no where. The majority components of the federal budget are Defense, SS/Medicare/Medicaid, and debt payments. Not the forestry service or what we commonly know as welfare. At this point, even cutting everything else to zero still lands us in deficit. (Unless taxes are raised.)

To be serious, we need to talk about what cuts are to be made to SS/Medicare/Medicaid and the military. But no one wants to have that discussion. So we throw out meaningless issues like welfare and the forestry service. We quibble around at the extreme edges, never addressing the central problems. That's the essence of the politics being discussed. Those politics make the issue impossible to fix.

I honestly don't know why it's so hard? I'd be totally willing to countenance the necessary cuts to the sacred cow programs at this point. Why is everyone so opposed to it?

▲

HumblyTossed 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> To be serious, we need to talk about what cuts are to be made to SS/Medicare/Medicaid...

To be serious, we need to talk about the funding of it, not the cutting of it. If we raise the cap, it gets more funding.

If we increase Medicare taxes and then go to a single payer system, it could be funded as well.

There is zero reason to have for-profit health insurance.

▲

thwarted 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> To be serious, we need to talk about what cuts are to be made to SS/Medicare/Medicaid and the military. But no one wants to have that discussion

The military-industrialist complex is a socialist jobs program.

	▲	14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]