3 ms·
Thank you. I've been saying this for years but nobody influential wants to acknowledge it. Starve the beast is an incredibly stupid plan if you actually care ab
by mcny 9y ago
Thank you. I've been saying this for years but nobody influential wants to acknowledge it. Starve the beast is an incredibly stupid plan if you actually care about reducing national debt.
Reducing income can't help us reduce spending. To reduce spending, we have to actually sit down and do the difficult task of reducing spending. Nothing else will do. At best, we are kicking the can down the road.
- Spooky23 9y agoRemember that the big power people behind these movements control resources. So their wealth stands to increase relatively speaking as more and more money is printed and the value declines.
- jessaustin 9y agoIs it possible to reduce national debt? Sure, some nations occasionally miscalculate and have a year or two in which the budget is balanced and the debt doesn't grow, but afterward their debt continues its inexorable rise. Some resourceful and wise nations like Norway have never gotten on the debt elevator, but has anyone ever gotten off? (Poor nations who have had debts forgiven are excluded from this question.)
- Retric 9y agoUS Debt vs GDP peaked higher than it is today then dropped to ~20% GDP in 1980 before shooting up again.
- jessaustin 9y ago"Debt" and "debt/GDP" are not the same thing?
- Retric 9y agoWhen they hit zero they are. Further, paying down debt when it's 100% GDP seems impossible, 20% GDP takes effort, 1% GDP can happen by accident.
- jessaustin 9y agoThis doesn't seem to relate to my original question. We're not talking about the deficit in any particular year. As I stipulated, that yearly deficit can be zero or even negative by accident, without touching the debt that has accumulated over time. If you've got an example of a nation that went from 100% cumulative debt/GDP to 20%, let's see it!