4 ms·
America can’t solve this problem democratically. Trump has taught the GOP you can win elections through targeted bribery (e.g. No Taxes on Tips), avoiding hard
by rayiner 6mo ago
America can’t solve this problem democratically. Trump has taught the GOP you can win elections through targeted bribery (e.g. No Taxes on Tips), avoiding hard decisions (e.g. no cuts to entitlements), and distracting people with expensive spectacle. Meanwhile, Democrats are a collection of interest groups held together by patronage. In the recent election, Democrats were knee-capped because inflation made it impossible to promise expensive new programs. With expanding benefits off the table as a carrot, Trump was able to make big gains among Democrat groups (e.g. Bangladeshi immigrants in Queens, Muslim immigrants in Michigan) that lean more conservative on issues other than government welfare.
That leaves everyone dealing in fictions: the fiction that you can reduce debt by cutting taxes, the fiction you can reduce debt by increasing spending, and fictions about how much you really balance the books by targeting only “billionaires” instead of taxing the middle class.
- DoesntMatter22 6mo agoThe only problem that exists is spending too much money. They could fix this overnight if people were willing to give up public entitlements and healthcare support. But they aren’t willing to so the US will eventually see hyper inflation or less likely bankruptcy
- rayiner 6mo agoNo, you can also raise taxes. The deficit is 4% of GDP. If we raised taxes by 4% of GDP, we'd still be less than the OECD average. We'd be the same as Australia, which is the second lowest-tax Anglosphere country.
- 9rx 6mo agoIf taxes are raised then the people have to pay for the services, which is exactly what they don't want to have to do. That is the whole appeal of having those services — that they are, for all intents and purposes, free.
- rayiner 6mo agoI mean this is the problem with half a century of global-hegemony-fueled debt binging. We could balance the budget our taxes would still be $2.7 trillion lower than what they would be if we were at the EU average.
- DoesntMatter22 6mo agoHegemony is large irrelevant as much of Europe is facing the exact same issue, some of it much worse than the US
- DoesntMatter22 6mo agoWe are spending 3 trillion extra dollars than we take in taxes per year. That means taxes would go up by 75 percent. Even then it doesn’t matter because we will spend even more. Everyone agrees to spend, no one agrees to cut
- rayiner 6mo agoI must have been looking at old data, but it looks like $1.9 trillion in FY2026. So that's 6.5% of GDP rather than 4% like I said above. Taxes as a percentage of GDP is currently about 25%, so going up to 31.5% would be a 26% jump. Not great, but not catastrophic. But I agree that if we raised taxes we would just spend more. :(
- UltraSane 6mo agoTaxes can always be raised before going bankrupt.
- DoesntMatter22 6mo agoTaxes would have to go up so dramatically that people would completely be protesting in the streets and rioting. Governments always just print more money instead. Which is why we are at the spot we are at.
- UltraSane 6mo agoThey would not have to go up that much.
- DoesntMatter22 6mo agoClose to 70 percent
- UltraSane 6mo agoShow your math.
- QuarterReptile 6mo agoThe overnight fix, to be perfectly clear, would require illegal firing of federal judges and getting rid of the filibuster, just to start fixing.
- LocalH 6mo agoThe real overnight fix would be something we can't say on the internet without getting banned from whatever site we say it on
- TimorousBestie 6mo agoEventually, paraleipsis will be insufficient to protect yourself from this sort of behavior, c.f. the new Comey indictment.
- bdangubic 6mo agowe should give up 765 things first before entitlements - starting with cutting Department of War budget by about 90% and go from there
- rayiner 6mo agoThat would be irrational. Even the UK and France spend 2% of GDP on defense, and they live under America's shield. Cutting our spending down to their level would save $400 billion/year. That's not peanuts, but that's only 1/3 of the deficit. Having sufficient capacity for violence is indispensable for the existence of a state. You need a military so you can kill people in other countries, and you need police so you can maintain an internal monopoly on violence. You can't have state-funded preschool if you don't have a state. The Ukrainians unfortunately are learning this the hard way right now.
- dh2022 6mo agoRe: "You can't have state-funded preschool if you don't have a state" - USA is protected by two immense oceans right and left and two huge, weak and pliable neighbors up and down. From all sides USA is well protected without spending hundreds of billions anually. About ballistic missiles threat - USA already has 1,200 nuclear warheads deployed in various forms (submarine, air force, ground silos) so MADD takes care of that. With 2% of GDP USA would take care of all its defense needs. USA does not need 11 aircraft carrier groups, about 100 nuclear-powered submarines, about 2,000 jet fighters, only God knows how many destroyers, to protect itself.
- rayiner 6mo agoI agree the US could take care of its defense needs with 2% of GDP. But that would be a 40% cut, not a 90% cut. What we wouldn't be able to do is commit to protecting Europe or backstopping global capitalism.
- bdangubic 6mo ago> What we wouldn't be able to do is commit to protecting Europe or backstopping global capitalism. We voted "America First" just recently. The 10% of the current budget should be enough to protect us against Canada and Mexico... except of course that budget is not for defense...