4 ms·

It would be nice to see change in debt numbers vs change in deficit numbers. I think only Clinton ran a surplus in the last 30 years.

smallmancontrov 2mo ago
Yep, and the last Republican to run a surplus was Eisenhower during FY 1960.
- m0llusk 2mo ago
  Eisenhower who, despite being exhausted by WWII efforts, ran for presidency because he saw that as the only way to prevent a civil war. Nowadays the American Left is Center Right, but back then the American Right was Center Left. Things change, things stay the same.
  - marcusverus 2mo ago
    [flagged]
    - scarecrowbob 2mo ago
      Yes, yes and their hearts pump a viscous oily goo rather than blood.
      - smallmancontrov 2mo ago
        I will not stop until every last frog is gay.
        deleted 2mo ago
        [deleted]
  - ericmay 2mo ago
    > Eisenhower who, despite being exhausted by WWII efforts, ran for presidency because he saw that as the only way to prevent a civil war. Can you share more about this? I'm unfamiliar with a post-World War II civil war risk. Who were the conspirators? Who would be fighting whom? > Nowadays the American Left is Center Right, but back then the American Right was Center Left. Things change, things stay the same. I don't think this is the case. Populism has confused some folks about where things stand. There also seems to be this default assumption, kind of like the End of History, that being "left" is associated with moral goodness and so haha the American left is only just center right, ergo not quite good enough yet! I'd challenge that assumption. Frankly, the center is often the best because moving too far to one side or the other is destabilizing. Communism would be awful, as would other authoritarian ideologies like fascism.
    - smallmancontrov 2mo ago
      The pendulum has been swinging pro-capital since Reagan and has not even stalled yet. This affects both parties. You will not find enlightenment by averaging "heads I win" with "tales you lose." FDR Democrats: fixed the Great Depression by bailing out the people not the banks (construction of roads, bridges, schools, dams, airports), regulated the banks, legislated protections for unions, electrified rural America, ended elder poverty with Social Security, won WWII, won the peace after WWII. Paid for it by taxing the rich, paid down the debt by taxing pensions. Clinton Democrats: cut the government to the bone, "DOGE but real," massive tax hike on top workers, massive tax cut on capital, kicked offshoring into gear (NAFTA was voted against by most House and Senate Democrats), teed up the China WTO admission for Bush, and handed him a massive budget surplus with a bow on top ready to be pissed away on not one but two pointless Republican forever-wars. Oh, and bonus Epstein connection. These are not the same. FDR Democrats would see Clinton Democrats as 100% DINOs, doing everything that Republicans say they want. The DINOs can only be identified as non-Republican due to their fiscal restraint which has not been a Republican quality since Eisenhower. Obama Democrats were better, but chose to bail out the banks not the people, didn't pass single-payer healthcare, and didn't end Bush's forever wars. Biden ended Afghanistan and quietly started enforcing Trump fair trade policies. So the Democratic party has been moving left at a snail's pace after reaching a zenith of "Republicans but less shit," but they are still far, far from FDR. Who was in turn far from actual socialists or communists. Here's hoping that on this next swing of the pendulum we land on FDR again, yeah? In any case, you cannot average your way to enlightenment. If you want that, you must learn about actual policies and actual history.
dgellow 2mo ago
With all the infrastructure work needed to adapt to a changing climate that’s very unlikely to happen. Assuming we decide to take the threat seriously
- mathgeek 2mo ago
  This is how I view it these days as well. I'm fine with running a deficit as long as we're solving real problems at a mix of time horizons. Using public funds to funnel more money to the ultra wealthy is the issue for me as a citizen.
  - throw0101d 2mo ago
    > This is how I view it these days as well. I'm fine with running a deficit as long as we're solving real problems at a mix of time horizons. There's nothing "these days" about the idea: that's how all debt should be looked at. How much in interest will it cost you, and are the benefits you get worth that cost? Borrowing money at 2-4% to build water/sewers infrastructure so your population does not die, and thus allows for better economic growth, can pay for the borrowed money easily. Or roads, bridges, rail, schools, scientific research, etc. If you're borrowing money because you have low revenues due to tax cuts (especially in top tax brackets), then perhaps your ROI won't be as good. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast
    - mathgeek 2mo ago
      That was an explanation of my own views (these days), not a statement about economics.
  - PunchyHamster 2mo ago
    Well the problems are not being solved, they are being added
  - renehsz 2mo ago
    There's nothing wrong with using public funds to solve real problems, but persistent deficit spending is the wrong way to go about it! Deficit spending causes inflation, and that type of inflation is a hidden, regressive form of taxation. It hits everybody, but the poorest suffer most when all the essentials get more expensive. The government creates new money, but really the value of that money comes out of everybody's income and bank accounts. If additional government spending is truly necessary, it should be funded through transparent, progressive taxation, so that it only affects those who can afford to pay the tax, and so that the voting public is aware of it. Unforunately, you're unlikely to win an election on the promise of raising taxes. The hidden tax of inflation, on the other hand, is so perfectly hidden in plain sight that most people don't notice it unless it gets out of hand.

smallmancontrov 2mo ago

Yep, and the last Republican to run a surplus was Eisenhower during FY 1960.

m0llusk 2mo ago
Eisenhower who, despite being exhausted by WWII efforts, ran for presidency because he saw that as the only way to prevent a civil war. Nowadays the American Left is Center Right, but back then the American Right was Center Left. Things change, things stay the same.
- marcusverus 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - scarecrowbob 2mo ago
    Yes, yes and their hearts pump a viscous oily goo rather than blood.
    - smallmancontrov 2mo ago
      I will not stop until every last frog is gay.
      - deleted 2mo ago
        [deleted]
- ericmay 2mo ago
  > Eisenhower who, despite being exhausted by WWII efforts, ran for presidency because he saw that as the only way to prevent a civil war. Can you share more about this? I'm unfamiliar with a post-World War II civil war risk. Who were the conspirators? Who would be fighting whom? > Nowadays the American Left is Center Right, but back then the American Right was Center Left. Things change, things stay the same. I don't think this is the case. Populism has confused some folks about where things stand. There also seems to be this default assumption, kind of like the End of History, that being "left" is associated with moral goodness and so haha the American left is only just center right, ergo not quite good enough yet! I'd challenge that assumption. Frankly, the center is often the best because moving too far to one side or the other is destabilizing. Communism would be awful, as would other authoritarian ideologies like fascism.
  - smallmancontrov 2mo ago
    The pendulum has been swinging pro-capital since Reagan and has not even stalled yet. This affects both parties. You will not find enlightenment by averaging "heads I win" with "tales you lose." FDR Democrats: fixed the Great Depression by bailing out the people not the banks (construction of roads, bridges, schools, dams, airports), regulated the banks, legislated protections for unions, electrified rural America, ended elder poverty with Social Security, won WWII, won the peace after WWII. Paid for it by taxing the rich, paid down the debt by taxing pensions. Clinton Democrats: cut the government to the bone, "DOGE but real," massive tax hike on top workers, massive tax cut on capital, kicked offshoring into gear (NAFTA was voted against by most House and Senate Democrats), teed up the China WTO admission for Bush, and handed him a massive budget surplus with a bow on top ready to be pissed away on not one but two pointless Republican forever-wars. Oh, and bonus Epstein connection. These are not the same. FDR Democrats would see Clinton Democrats as 100% DINOs, doing everything that Republicans say they want. The DINOs can only be identified as non-Republican due to their fiscal restraint which has not been a Republican quality since Eisenhower. Obama Democrats were better, but chose to bail out the banks not the people, didn't pass single-payer healthcare, and didn't end Bush's forever wars. Biden ended Afghanistan and quietly started enforcing Trump fair trade policies. So the Democratic party has been moving left at a snail's pace after reaching a zenith of "Republicans but less shit," but they are still far, far from FDR. Who was in turn far from actual socialists or communists. Here's hoping that on this next swing of the pendulum we land on FDR again, yeah? In any case, you cannot average your way to enlightenment. If you want that, you must learn about actual policies and actual history.

dgellow 2mo ago

With all the infrastructure work needed to adapt to a changing climate that’s very unlikely to happen. Assuming we decide to take the threat seriously

mathgeek 2mo ago
This is how I view it these days as well. I'm fine with running a deficit as long as we're solving real problems at a mix of time horizons. Using public funds to funnel more money to the ultra wealthy is the issue for me as a citizen.
- throw0101d 2mo ago
  > This is how I view it these days as well. I'm fine with running a deficit as long as we're solving real problems at a mix of time horizons. There's nothing "these days" about the idea: that's how all debt should be looked at. How much in interest will it cost you, and are the benefits you get worth that cost? Borrowing money at 2-4% to build water/sewers infrastructure so your population does not die, and thus allows for better economic growth, can pay for the borrowed money easily. Or roads, bridges, rail, schools, scientific research, etc. If you're borrowing money because you have low revenues due to tax cuts (especially in top tax brackets), then perhaps your ROI won't be as good. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast
  - mathgeek 2mo ago
    That was an explanation of my own views (these days), not a statement about economics.
- PunchyHamster 2mo ago
  Well the problems are not being solved, they are being added
- renehsz 2mo ago
  There's nothing wrong with using public funds to solve real problems, but persistent deficit spending is the wrong way to go about it! Deficit spending causes inflation, and that type of inflation is a hidden, regressive form of taxation. It hits everybody, but the poorest suffer most when all the essentials get more expensive. The government creates new money, but really the value of that money comes out of everybody's income and bank accounts. If additional government spending is truly necessary, it should be funded through transparent, progressive taxation, so that it only affects those who can afford to pay the tax, and so that the voting public is aware of it. Unforunately, you're unlikely to win an election on the promise of raising taxes. The hidden tax of inflation, on the other hand, is so perfectly hidden in plain sight that most people don't notice it unless it gets out of hand.