Does anyone believe $3.5T in spending doesn't add to the National Debt?

We never worry about the national debt when want to invade someone, build an aircraft carrier, nuclear sub, etc. But when there's talk of spending a pile of money on something that can help actual people we suddenly worry about the National Debt.

The party that is not in the White House complains about the national debt.

And then when they win the White House, they run it up even more.

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/politics/elections/2020/10/27/donald-trump-has-failed-keep-campaign-pledge-erase-national-debt/3682405001/

HRE wrote:

We never worry about the national debt when want to invade someone, build an aircraft carrier, nuclear sub, etc. But when there's talk of spending a pile of money on something that can help actual people we suddenly worry about the National Debt.

Because building aircraft and nuclear subs puts people to work. Handing money out to people just conditions them to wanting you to hand them more money.

It's like feeding bears. Don't do it.

It's one thing to be okay with increasing the national debt; it's another to pretend your bill costs $0 when that's obviously false.

Dewey Well wrote:

Seriously, does the buffoon who keeps repeating this even believe it?

It's just numbers on a spreadsheet. It's really all that is.

There is always enough money to fight another useless war or build more useless fighter jets or aircraft carriers.

The Navy wasted billions of dollars and nobody gets upset about that.

When when some money is spend for normal people and infrastructure,: "We can't afford it!".

brien evans wrote:

HRE wrote:

We never worry about the national debt when want to invade someone, build an aircraft carrier, nuclear sub, etc. But when there's talk of spending a pile of money on something that can help actual people we suddenly worry about the National Debt.

Because building aircraft and nuclear subs puts people to work. Handing money out to people just conditions them to wanting you to hand them more money.

It's like feeding bears. Don't do it.

Consumer spending drives modern economies. Recessions happen when there's too little money circulating.

HRE wrote:

brien evans wrote:

Because building aircraft and nuclear subs puts people to work. Handing money out to people just conditions them to wanting you to hand them more money.

It's like feeding bears. Don't do it.

Consumer spending drives modern economies. Recessions happen when there's too little money circulating.

Currently we have too much money circulating, too little supply to meet consumer demand, and too many unfilled job openings.

Inflation will erode the debt even without repayments. You can't be complaining about inflation one day and the national debt the next.

Presidents Since 1900 by Debt Change Percentage

1) Calvin Coolidge 24.24% DECREASE

2) Warren Harding 6.79% DECREASE

3) Harry Truman 2.86%

4) John Kennedy 5.84%

5) Dwight Eisenhower 8.61%

6) William Taft 10.48%

7) Lyndon Johnson 15.65%

8) Theodore Roosevelt 23.15%

9) Bill Clinton 31.64%

10) Herbert Hoover 33.12%

11) Donald Trump 33.62%

12) Richard Nixon 34.30%

13) Jimmy Carter 42.79%

14) Gerald Ford 47.11%

15) George HW Bush 54.39%

16) Barack Obama 69.98%

17) George W. Bush 105.08%

18) Ronald Reagan 186.36%

19) Woodrow Wilson 722.21%

20) Franklin Roosevelt 1047.73%

Our ten most recent Presidents

Ronald Reagan 186.36%

George W. Bush 105.08%

Barack Obama 69.98%

George HW Bush 54.39%

Gerald Ford 47.11%

Jimmy Carter 42.79%

Richard Nixon 34.30%

Donald Trump 33.62%

Bill Clinton 31.64%

Lyndon Johnson 15.65%

Dewey Well wrote:

Seriously, does the buffoon who keeps repeating this even believe it?

0.5/10.

The plan is mostly financed by tax increases, and many economists have projected it to be deficit neutral over 15 years. (The plan itself is over a 10 year time period.)

Further, federal borrowing costs remain at historical lows, and given that his agenda is mostly an INVESTMENT plan, the returns to such a plan make this a no-brainer. Never mind that polling shows substantial popular support behind most of the initiatives in his agenda to begin with.

I like that I don't have to read/watch fox news to know what the republicans are pushing. It all just ends up here and it's said as if it's an original thought lol

That's why we need o #DefundPolice, #DefundPentagon, #DefundKuKlan, #DefundTrumpBigLies

troll_69 wrote:

Dewey Well wrote:

Seriously, does the buffoon who keeps repeating this even believe it?

0.5/10.

The plan is mostly financed by tax increases, and many economists have projected it to be deficit neutral over 15 years.

"Many economists have projected _____ over 15 years" = as credible as astrology. Same thing was true about the "revenue neutral" tax cuts.

If GOP tax cuts don't add to the debt, then I don't see why this should either.

What's included in the bill:

Road and Bridge - Don't we already pay taxes for those on gas?

Public Transit, Rail, Seaports and Airports - Again, don't we already pay taxes and fees for those on tickets, gas taxes, etc.?

$65 billion to bring high speed internet to all Americans - Isn't that something we should pay for when we choose an ISP? Why do we need public funding for this?

$21 billion to cleanup superfund sites - Fine, but shouldn't the brunt of the cost be born by the share holders in the offending companies?

Green Energy and Electrical car charging infrastructure upgrades - This should be born by the electric rate payers or a tax on electric vehicles (rather than the tax subsidy we give to people who buy electric vehicles now).

Paid family leave, day care and universal pre-K for 3 and 4 year olds. - Basically Dems want to take away the financial responsibility for having kids away from parents. Amazingly, my kids function on a high level academically even without those things because we simply read to them when they were growing up and kept them away from TV and i-pads.

2-years free community college - It used to be you had to serve in the armed services if you wanted a paid education from the federal government. Now, people want it as an entitlement. Giving two years of CC to kids that are already flunking out won't do much good.

Expanded Child tax credits- see above analysis on universal pre-K. Kids cost money. If you can't afford it, don't have kids.

Medicare expansion to cover dental, vision and hearing - Another subsidy for those who are already taking far more out in taxes than they contributed. Bad enough they are already bankrupting social security and medicare for my generation, why not add more fuel to the fire? Will likely cost more than estimated, because it always does.

Federal coverage of expansion in Medicaid in states that did not elect to expand it.

And a bunch of other climate pipe dream programs.

A. They're targeting roughly a $1.5-2.0 trillion bill now.

B. That money is to be spent over ten years, =roughly $150-200 billion per year, about 20-25% of the defense budget.

C. Much of that spending generates more in economic activity than it costs.

D. Increased tax collections on the wealthiest citizens and corporations, who pay very little relative to their wealth in taxation, will pay for much of the outlays.

Current administration wants to spent a ton, and a lot of that will help all of us.

Previous administration cuts taxes trickle-down style, which never works and costs a ton, and that helps a few thousand, and hurts the rest of us.

Hardloper wrote:

troll_69 wrote:

0.5/10.

The plan is mostly financed by tax increases, and many economists have projected it to be deficit neutral over 15 years.

"Many economists have projected _____ over 15 years" = as credible as astrology. Same thing was true about the "revenue neutral" tax cuts.

Unfortunately, "analyses" that project tax cuts to be deficit neutral are much less credible than the tried and true method of raising revenue and reducing deficits via tax increases. To even try and compare the two with the weight of evidence out there is ridiculous.