From the Wall Street Journal today:
Republicans want to extend the Trump-era tax cuts that lapse after 2025. A big point of debate now: Should they cover any or all of the $4 trillion cost—and how?
Etc.
Spare me. Republican concern over the federal debt is no more real than it's ever been—which is to say, nonexistent. If they control Congress and the presidency, they'll extend the tax cuts and do nothing to offset them, end of story.
I get that the Journal has to pretend that this is some kind of live issue, but surely they know better? Republicans have been passing unpaid-for tax cuts since Reagan took office, and the only offsets they've ever been interested in are spending cuts on the poor. That's it. There's nothing more.
Glad I could shed a little light on this.
There are plenty of voters out there who care about the deficit. Somehow they vote Republican, though.
Well, RepubliQans DO care about:
- The deficit (when a Democrat is president)
- The morals and values (when a Democrat is president)
- The controlling the border (when a Democrat is president)
- The states' rights (when a Democrat is president)
- The limiting the poser of the president (when a Democrat is president)
Make $170 per hour. its very hard to find jobs nowadays. In this sv02 situation, you have access to a wealth of resources to help you with your working abilities. Be motivated to promote Thousands of works such as copy paste things through job boards and career tr-40 websites on internet
Just Take A Look At This>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://aboutguidance50.blogspot.com/
Like Republican politicians, Republican voters claim to care about the deficit. There is no reason to believe either. Many lower-income whites vote Republican because of racism and religion, not economics. They parrot the party line on economic matters.
Claiming to care about the deficit is different than actually caring about the deficit.
Voting choices seem to indicate that most voters who claim to care about the deficit do not actually care about the deficit.
They used to pretend that the tax cuts would lead to more production because big business would use the money to expand creating jobs leading to more taxes being paid thus covering the tax break. They don’t even bother with that nonsense any more. Now all they say is “hey rich people give me money and I’ll cut your taxes and end regulations that cost you money.”
I always remember Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey (who claimed to be an enconomist) saying the Clinton tax plan would bring economic growth to a halt and explode the deficit. Instead economic growth accelerated and the deficit dissappeared. Is there anyway Armey his Republican associates could have gotten it more wrong?
Ah, Dick Cheney! Then, once he was in office as Veep, it was
Republicans will lie to you and say that they care about fixing something that they are trying to scare you about, but once in office, they consistently only do one thing.
They lower taxes on the rich.
Nothing else matters. Nothing at all. Everything else is red meat thrown to the rabid dogs.
Two kinds of people worry about the debt: ignoramuses and liars. Don't be either.
Creigh, there is clearly *some* limit to how much governments can borrow without getting into trouble. We see small or poorly run countries get into debt trouble all the time, with very high inflation and stagnant growth, and no good way to solve either problem because no one will loan them money.
BUT, the borrowing ceiling for large and relatively well-run economies is clearly much higher than economists used to think. Japan's national debt is nearing triple their GDP, yet their inflation and unemployment rates are quite low, and living standards are high.
The US national debt is about 1.5XGDP, and Japan's example gives us good reason to believe we still have plenty of headroom.
Still, if I could choose between "Run up the debt indefinitely" or "Tax the rich and pay some debt down" I would absolutely tax the rich.