3 ms·
> I don’t trust republicans in Congress to actually do it. But it could be a historic opportunity for democrats to call their bluff and support the cuts. I thi
by blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
> I don’t trust republicans in Congress to actually do it. But it could be a historic opportunity for democrats to call their bluff and support the cuts.
I think there’s a huge natural reason for both parties to get behind significant and aggressive cost cutting, which is the accumulating debt and wasted spending on interest payments. Reductions in costs, even outside mandatory spending, will have an effect on reducing the amount of debt and burden of financing. They will also make the economy more resilient since it will be less sensitive to interest rates. This is critical to retaining a stable economy even when other countries, such as China, are in difficult economic positions.
> A once in a century opportunity to end the age of American empire and reorient America for the inevitable multipolar future.
If there is a multipolar future, I hope the other superpowers are countries that are relatively peaceful and share values like free speech. I don’t trust China to be that country as long as it is led by the CCP, as long as it continues to hold onto (or threaten) territories that aren’t rightfully a part of China (like Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong, Taiwan). It’s in America’s interests to prevent a multipolar future since the only other competitor is China. Maybe that will change - I’d be more willing to accept a future where the other superpowers are Europe or India or whatever.
But any multipolar situation requires the US cut spending and fast. If there is a true competiting power, it will mean America will have to live with the realities of a weaker dollar, high debt, and other headwinds (like low growth, high interest rates, inflation).
- 3eb7988a1663 2y agoI do not see how you square that with the tax cuts that are being proposed in the same breath. Some $4.5 trillion in reduced revenue makes the debt problem worse.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y agoIt depends on the details. It’s certainly possible that more money in the hands of consumers, entrepreneurs, and investors will lead to growth that will have larger revenue generating effects than the apparent losses. It’s also possible that an initial round of spending reduction and tax reduction will encourage the public to support further changes in the future, including bigger cuts in spending - meaning it doesn’t have to all balance out at once right now. I do think that public appetite for this will grow - just purely based on the numbers, it seems inevitable that the US will end up revisiting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. It’s painful but I think more people are recognizing this reality daily. Coming back to the revenue reductions: the Trump 2.0 administration is very different than Trump 1.0, and he has a lot of smart, experienced people around him to advise him. I can envision them coming up with plans that are successful in putting America back on the right track. But I certainly don’t “trust” the plan by default, for the same reason you’re bringing up. At the same time, I don’t want to be too negative about it either - we just don’t know enough about it. And maybe that’s okay, since it can be useful for the administration to not reveal their larger strategy publicly for many reasons. So I can’t square it, but I am hopeful about where all this is going. Continuing the trajectory of the last several administrations is worse.
- smw 2y agoHey look, you still believe in "trickle down"! I thought these guys were extinct!