We Showed Trump Voters the National Debt
We asked delegates at the Republican National Convention whether a second Trump term would address America's debt problem.
HD DownloadAmerica's national debt is out of control. More than $8.1 trillion was added to the gross federal debt under the Trump administration, according to U.S. Treasury Department estimates. (The Congressional Budget Office, which uses debt held by the public and excludes debt owed to government agencies, estimates that Trump signed legislation adding $7.8 trillion in publicly held debt over the next ten years.)
Reason's Zach Weissmueller asked delegates and attendees at the 2024 Republican National Convention whether Donald Trump is going to do anything about the debt should he be elected for a second term. Trump attacked his former primary opponents for suggesting even modest reforms to Social Security and Medicare, which make up almost a third of the federal budget.
So are Trump voters open to cutting entitlement spending? Or defense? Or increasing immigration to boost economic growth and improve tax revenues? What kinds of government programs would they want to see Trump cut?
Watch the video above to find out.
- Video Editor: Danielle Thompson
- Camera: Justin Zuckerman
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Grandma needs to take a paycut. End three letter agencies. Cut military spending 90%. End all forms of welfare. But none of these will happen.
The US will collapse due to the devaluation of the dollar.
Eliminating the DoD won't even cover interest on the debt.
Nope. That is why the other cuts are also needed. But none of it will occur.
There is one candidate who talks about all those things. Know who? I’ll give you a clue. People in the comments call him a fruitcake and a twink, but bristle at the observation that they won’t vote for him because he’s gay.
The Obama supporter that had no answer for the tens of millions of additional welfare recipients? The former human resources manager that never signed the front of a check and has no CEO experience? The one that uses identity politics where his supporters claim “homophobe” when libertarians see an inexperienced lightweight with collectivist underpinnings and say they won’t support that? That one? It is not that he sucks cock but that he just plain sucks.
The guy who started off as an anti-war Democrat until he got disgusted with the party and became a libertarian. Believe it or not, but some people change their views over time, and evolve and grow as people. Some can even separate the personal from the political. I know it's hard to imagine, but it's true.
Maybe Chase will vote for the guy that started no new wars. He’s a follower and not a leader. Robert Byrd supposedly had changed his ways but I wouldn’t have voted for him either.
How do you define “no new wars”? Do you mean not initiating hostilities, no new boots on the ground, no airstrikes against new enemies? Be careful here. You might accidentally be describing a Democrat. That would be a sin against the tribal god.
Book marked. Lol.
He’s going to call you weird for doing that.
Thats fine. He also claims he doesn't defend democrats yet there he is saying anti war is describing democrats and not Trump. Despite all evidence.
No Iraq. No Afghanistan (he negotiated the exit that the guy who voted to go in then helped manage it for eight years then extended the stay and fucked up the withdraw). No proxy garbage in eastern Europe. The Dem in the White House voted for the wars as did the 2016 candidate. I think Golden voted against one Ukraine funding package but for the others. He wanted to send F16s there and votes with Brandon about 85% of the time.
Does supplying Israel count as “proxy garbage”? Pretty sure Trump approves of that. You need to fine-tune your definition of war a little more so you can claim Trump is anti-war and Biden is pro-war. I'm sure you can do it.
It was defined, retard. Quite clearly. Are you drunk again? It is in the post in clear English. Did you have a Biden-like decline since I was last in the comments? Something else?
So supplying Ukraine is a proxy war while supplying Israel is not. What’s the difference, other than Trump saying he would have supplied Israel if he was president? Looks to me like you want it both ways. Biden is a warmonger for supplying Ukraine while Trump wouldn’t have, but Trump isn’t a warmonger for saying he'd have supplied Israel because… well… that’s different.
Biden is doing both. The current large scale operation caused by Palestine attacking Israel is a Biden admin situation. Biden is actually supporting both of these things. Maybe now that team D has turned their back on the child groping, pants shitting, dementia patient you can criticize him some for what he is actually doing and has been doing.
Trump is like a woman - the focus is on the actions and less on the words. He has a decent four year track record as potus which is far better than anyone back to say Ford.
I want zero government dollars to any country ever. I hope you can agree that the US should not give anything to Ukraine and should never have given anything to Ukraine.
You said "Maybe Chase will vote for the guy that started no new wars."
The clear implication was that he should vote for Trump. Except that Biden also has not started any new wars. So you move the goalposts to supporting proxy wars, specifically Ukraine. Well, the war in Gaza is a proxy war as well, and Trump fully supports Israel. So that doesn't work.
Now what?
I hope you can agree that the US should not give anything to Ukraine and should never have given anything to Ukraine.
As I've said before, I'm ambivalent (having mixed feelings or contradictory ideas about something or someone). I don't want our government to be involved in foreign wars, however I also don't want Putin to gain more power and territory.
Damn sarspasstic, you're really on a roll.
Trump didn’t start any new ones.
Biden has with the proxy war in Ukraine that had been cosy in terms of the US govt spending, the loss of life, the unintended consequences which may have included the end of the petrodollar. Playing daddy bankroll to the nazi adjacent banderas next to the world's largest nuclear power makes me less safe. Good to know you do not oppose Biden’s funneling of taxpayer money to those bad people. Biden also has the stains of voting for and supporting invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. But maybe you are ambivalent about that too.
The Ukraine proxy war had been criticized by me from day one. There is no adding things in later on this. But keep floundering in your support but not really support for it position.
Has Trump funded Israel during the current hostilities?
Has Trump funded Israel during the current hostilities?
He said that he would have, and who really knows what he would have done after Putin invaded Ukraine.
I can tell you're tired of carrying those goalposts around because you're resorting to personal attacks. Carry on impressing the trolls. I'm outta here.
"Outa here" my ass. You'll be back. You hate letting things go.
Hope Santa brings you a jump to conclusions mat for Chri…Winter Holiday.
During his speech, Trump highlighted how things like that happening under Biden (and Obama) didn’t happen under his leadership. Do you need a decoder ring to figure out how this may be applicable?
I’m reiterating your positions. I’m glad you find them distasteful too.
Biden has also blocked any peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. All while pursuing policies that financially fuel a Russia’s war machine, where a Trump had starved them during his four years.
His views are bumper stickers. Like you he is a Democrat in LPe clothing. He has no insights or plans to actually realize what his bumper stickers say. He just screams slogans so retards like you support him.
The gay race nazi antifa member that leftists conspired in the backrooms to make the LP candidate?
That guy?
The one who can't wipe his own ass without trying to use government force to do it?
All of that, and the fact that he came in dead last in the only political races he's ever attempted, with ~ 2% of the vote in both his House and Senate races in his home state.
Really screams 'national appeal'.
Are you referring to chase oliver teh closet commie who voted for obama? None of us libertarians care that he's a twink we care that he's a democrat.
Have your political views evolved over time? If so, why do you act as if you're the only one? If not then it's no surprise you project that onto others.
Sarc, what are his detailed plans. Prove he evolved and didnt just run as LP to help the DNC. The DNC had an open plan to run 3rd parties against the GOP. Chase shouting bumper stickers with no depth isnt a plan and doesn't show he changed his actual beliefs.
Even in 2022 he was advocating for federal protections for favored classes.
You really are a gullible moron.
Sarc won’t do any of that. Instead he’ll continue to cry ‘homophobe’ and attack anyone who criticizes Oliver. Just like how democrats (like Sarc) screamed ‘racist’ when Obama’s policies were criticized, and they couldn’t defend him either.
Sarc has nothing.
shh: no one tell Woodchipper that Trump used to be a Democrat
Very one knows that, you morbidly obese piece of shit. Trump has actual policies and a track record.
Now fuck off.
Name one goddamn person in the comments section, besides you and chemjeff, who have called Oliver a "fruitcake and a twink."
I called him an edgelord twink based on the messaging found in his PR photos and social media.
I stand corrected.
Are you saying you won't vote for him because he's gay, though? Or because you don't trust him for other reasons/don't like some of his policies?
If he were libertarian and had a CV suggesting he could do the job, I’d likely vote for him.
Chase will be the first LP candidate I won't vote for. They strayed for the past three elections too, but not this far, and they'll get no more support from me. This guy's worse than Weld and JoJo, and that's too much.
I voted for JoJo, reluctantly.
But did you do it strategically?
Will you admit that the opposition to Chase Oliver around here stems more from his perceived identity, rather than his policies?
Gays are all leftists. It's in their blood.
What's hilarious about this comment is Jeff has raged against Gays Against Groomers. Straka and his walk away campaign. And log cabin Republicans.
Despite you and sarc constantly trying to paint the commenters as opposing Chase simply for being gay, I see the OVERWHELMING majority of Chase detractors stemming from his positions on illegal immigration/Covid hysteria/transing kids or some combination.
Such as this criticism? Is this based on policy?
chase oliver teh closet commie who voted for obama
illegal immigration/Covid hysteria/transing kids or some combination
On illegal immigration: Chase supports the *libertarian* position on the issue, not the Republican one. That is to be expected from a *Libertarian* candidate. Sorry not sorry.
On "Covid hysteria": Chase never once supported government mandates on masks or vaccines or lockdowns. "But he wore a mask at Thanksgiving!!!!" Yes, he chose to, and if you want to focus on that as your criticism of him, that is closer to my statement about criticizing him for is identity rather than his policy.
On "transing kids": Chase takes a compromise position on this, no surgery until 18. I think it is a libertarian-friendly reasonable compromise actually. A complete ban on gender treatment for minors goes too far.
But even if you think that he strays too far from libertarian orthodoxy on these few issues: well, let me tell you how many ways that Trump fails the libertarian purity test...
the *libertarian* position
Now tell me who is a true Scotsman.
If you can present a philosophically consistent *libertarian* policy for restrictive immigration, then let's hear it. I don't think one exists.
Let's conflate illegal and legal immigration. Oh, wait, you do that routinely.
So you can't do it, you just whine that not everyone automatically adopts your position on immigration and calls it "libertarian".
Dude, I work for a living and only have limited time throughout the day (it varies) to read and comment on Reason in my down time.
And you have been presented with reasons why illegal immigration, especially being inundated with it, in this country that also has a welfare state and forced confiscation of earnings through taxation to pay for it, is a violation of the NAP, and generally limits, not increases, the liberty of its citizens.
End the welfare state in America (something I would think you'd support as such a prominent libertarian thinker), and then we can have a discussion on increasing all kinds of immigration.
Libertarian friendly transing position? Is that like if you wanted to fuck an eight year old boy but non-groomers said he must be eighteen and Chase says it should be thirteen? Those aren’t compromises.
No, it is not. Chase's position is a rational one that is not saturated with emotional appeals or bullshit comparisons to pedophilia.
The bottom line is, there are real kids with real psychological issues who seek help regarding their gender. And, there are a wide variety of possible psychological and medical interventions to try to help kids with their issues. You don't want to have interventions where the 'cure' may be worse than the disease, so those are only permitted once the kid turns 18. On the other hand, you don't want to narrow the set of possible options too strictly such that kids who really could benefit from this help is denied that help. Chase's position is a compromise between the two.
Those on the right who tend to say "Just ban it all and send the kids to counseling", don't seem to realize that counseling doesn't always work.
What if that thirteen year old boy passed that physical you had talked about and that citizen test you wanted? Assuming a President Oliver has issued an EO to make that legal.
Permanently damaging the sexual organs of minors sounds like something that Mengele was doing at Auschwitz. The line should be when they turn eighteen, let them do whatever they want provided they pay for it themselves or someone else non-coerced.
But his position is not a compromise. He states he wants the government completely out of the decision to medically transition a kid, because that should be solely a decision between the doctor and the parents (and kid).
He is also in favor of getting the government involved and proscribing surgical transitions, even if the doctor and parents and kid think it's the right move.
If you allow that the government does have a role, in this case protecting children from an irreversible change at a young age, you can't then say, but it's okay for this other irreversible change (medical transitions). And, yes, puberty blockers followed by cross-sex hormones are irreversible changes, despite you and WPATH lying about how it's all reversible.
He states he wants the government completely out of the decision to medically transition a kid, because that should be solely a decision between the doctor and the parents (and kid)
Yes, that is the ideologically purist libertarian position. His actual stated policy is a compromise, in that he says surgery should be banned before 18.
And, yes, puberty blockers followed by cross-sex hormones are irreversible changes,
No, not strictly true - it is that puberty blockers have more side-effects than just cross-sex hormones alone.
But puberty blockers are MORE reversible than surgery, which is for all intents and purposes irreversible.
On an issue like this, which is a legitimate gray area and the science is unclear, I am fine with some pragmatic line-drawing that would fail a libertarian purity test. But where the line is drawn has to consider the *entirety* of the population of those who might be affected.
I think one good reason to draw the line at no surgery for minors, is that I think it is true that there has been too little attention given to counseling and too much attention given to pharmaceutical/medical interventions, and before these should be considered, it seems prudent to allow counseling and therapy more of a chance to get to the heart of the issue of whatever is troubling a particular teen.
However, it is ALSO true that there are some teens out there for which therapy just doesn't work, perhaps because - get this - for them, they really are transgender and it's not just a 'delusion'.
So I am fine with some line-drawing such as, say, 'no puberty blockers until minimum age 16 and then only after X therapy sessions and Y clinical diagnoses and Z months of waiting period" or something like that. But I am completely against total bans, because that would do harm to this latter group of kids who really are transgender.
Those sure look like policy to me.
"Closet commie" means closet commie, not closet gay, has been a part of the language for a long long time, and he's been out of the gay closet too long for that to be accurate anyway.
The second quote is just more policies. Are you really so dumb as to think the rest of us are so dumb as to believe you are that illiterate?
Oh, here's another criticism of Chase from above, which is absolutely totally based on policy disagreement:
The gay race nazi antifa member
Lol
Oh, here is yet another criticism of Chase, from another thread, that is totally absolutely completely focused on policy and not identity.
https://reason.com/2024/07/19/republicans-dont-even-pretend-to-want-to-cut-government-anymore/?comments=true#comment-10649526
Libertarians could have started the conversation but they nominated a gay commie weirdo.
Leftists always think they can read your mind and it just happens to always turn out to be racism or some other ism.
It's not mind-reading. It is forming a conclusion based on observed patterns of behavior. I'm not claiming to know what is in your mind. I'm drawing a conclusion based on your words.
I’d vote for a Douglas Murray type in a fucking heartbeat.
As for “perceived identity” well yeah, identitarianism in an LP candidate is a bit of a red flag. Pun intended.
HE is not the one making a big deal of his sexual orientation. It is everyone else around him.
Then why wave a flag?
You mean a Pride flag? Why shouldn't he? He is proud of who he is. It is a part of his identity but it's not the only thing. Patriots wave American flags because it expresses a part of their identity as American patriots. Sports fans wave team flags because it expresses a part of their identity as a fan of that team. It doesn't mean that they should be judged SOLELY by the flag that they wave. Everyone else is making a huge deal about Pride flags and the like when for him it's just a part of expressing his identity the same way that lots of other people do.
Because what ever it meant 40 years ago, it's been completely co-opted by a corporatist/neo communist cultural revolution shoved down everyone’s throats the last decade or so ? And none of his previous stances counter act my basic assumptions that this is identitarianism? So he must not want me voting for him?
Where like, the Douglas Murray type only mentions he’s gay when some idiot calls him a “homophobe”. Which suggests he’s a real individual and his identity isn’t a gimmick or a bludgeon?
"Pride" made some sense when the cultural expectation was that you should be ashamed to be gay or otherwise sexually unusual. That is just not the case in the dominant culture now. Which makes the whole thing ridiculous at this point. Who goes around being proud of how they like to fuck? We should be proud of interesting things we actually do or accomplish, not basic facts about ourselves.
Well, now you are projecting onto him how you think he ought to express his identity. I don't support trying to tell people what their identity "ought to be" either.
And you just admitted he IS acting like an identitarian…
He is proud of his identity. Sure. Who isn’t? But he is NOT saying “vote for me because I’m gay”. THAT would be ‘identitarian’. It is EVERYONE ELSE who is making these identitarian arguments against him to criticize him.
I get the distinct impression around here - maybe not you specifically, but generally - that 'identitarian' means 'someone who expresses an identity that diverges from the mainstream'.
I'm not proud of my identity (whatever that is). I don't see why that is a matter for pride. Nor do I see why it's good to make your sexual preferences the core of your identity. Of course people can do whatever they want. And I can think it's dumb.
I think Christians are onto something when they say that pride is a sin.
I’m not proud of my identity (whatever that is). I don’t see why that is a matter for pride.
Oh sure you are, on some level. If you really weren't proud of your identity at all, you would be incapacitated by self-loathing.
We all carry around with us a bunch of different identities depending on the situation we are in. When we are with family, we adopt an identity suitable to our family role (father, brother, husband, son, nephew, uncle, etc.) When we are at work, we adopt an identity suitable to our work role (employee, boss, etc.) When we are online, we adopt an identity suitable to that (anonymous online libertarian). Etc. The concept of Pride Month is to state publicly that the identity associated with sexual orientation is not something to be ashamed of if that identity is something other than straight. Some people take it too far and walk around at Pride parades naked with strap-on dildos or something. Some people take it too far in the other direction and think that Pride is about "forcing an agenda down someone's throat" when that is not the case.
Nor do I see why it’s good to make your sexual preferences the core of your identity. Of course people can do whatever they want. And I can think it’s dumb.
I think Christians are onto something when they say that pride is a sin.
Who said that sexual orientation is the CORE of Chase's identity? I don't know, maybe it is, but that is not the impression that I get from his interviews. I don't see him going around saying "I'm the gayest gay who ever gayed so vote for me!" I see him saying that being gay is an important part of his identity, and that's that. I see everyone else making a big deal about it.
Will you admit that your narrative about Chase is a total lie, and based on your inability to sell him as a candidate based on his merits?
Can you cite your examples of calling him a fruitcake?
Also have you figured out how government works yet? Or are you demanding Chase become a dictator?
Vivek was the only one who seemed to have an actual plan for reducing federal government. If I was going to vote I'd probably vote for the L guy. But for a presidential candidate I'd really rather see someone with an actual plan of action and not vague expressions of general libertarian ideals. Maybe Chase has a plan, but I haven't heard it.
DoD spends way more that what you scream regarding tariffs. Weird.
^ This
Get rid of the income tax and the fed, and let the chips fall where they may. Better for everyone in the long run. See Argentina for some examples.
You would need the hyperinflation first to get voters to support such a candidate. Which is on the way.
oh for sure. Hyperinflation is definitely coming. Not because it's inevitable but because our wise masters have absolutely no chance of doing what it takes to avoid.
If I were the dictator in chief, I would permanently lay off any government employee or position ever identified as “non-essential” in any of the budget standoffs.
Then implement a hiring freeze.
Then order a 5% budget cut across the board for all departments.
Then freeze spending for the next 8 years. (I’m not sure why every presidential candidate has a 10-year plan when terms are 4 years.)
But that probably wouldn’t fly, politically or legally.
One alternative that should be easier to sell (but apparently also won’t fly) would be to just freeze spending at current levels.
If that had been done 6 years ago, the budget would be balanced already.
Based on the current gap, it would probably take a 10-year freeze now. Allowing for a few percent growth in spending each year would push that out, but would still be achievable eventually, and leave the country and the economy in much better shape than what’s really going to happen.
Simpler start: return to the federal funding ($4 trillIon) and staffing we had in 2019. That was a terrible time, I know, but it provides an instant $3 trillion cut.
This.
Also take away the ability to create unlimited fiat dollars.
...and don't forget to eliminate foreign aid, subsidies, grants and money to NGOs.
That would help too.
Summary: "Immigrants and trannes. Go after immigrants and trannies. And cut the Department of Education. That'll fix the deficit."
Any nibbles?
I summarized what the MAGAs in the video said. Why you don’t you actually watch it instead of being a Canadian Idiot?
I didn't click your link Mr. Principles and Ideas Only. Does that make you angry?
Eliminate the Dept of Ed. The public education industrial complex may be a trillion dollar a year anchor.
You're talking to the guy who thinks tax cuts are wrong.
Sarc should write for Reason. Can’t wait for those articles , like ‘The Reason Case for Tax Hikes’, and ‘The Reason Case for Authoritarian Democrat Governance’. And we would also look forward to ‘Trump: Big Meanie, or Giant Poopyhead?’.
Lots of hard hitting, incisive, drunken ravings.
Reason had that article last week complaining of the Trump tax cuts reducing revenue.
I've got no problem with eliminating the Department of Education. Please do. Just saying that that's like trying to balance the household budget by not going to Dunkins in on the way to work.
DoE costs more than tarrifs. Weird what you rage about.
^ This
Doe doesn’t let him rage at Trump.
We know that. But it is fun to point it out to him.
2 book marks 1 thread. You dont sound like a bog standard leftist at all.
There was a survey several years ago asking people which parts of the federal budget they would cut to reduce the deficit. The only program with majority support for cutting it was foreign aid. Which is less than 1% of the budget.
It’s a start.
Where did anyone say go after trannies? give me the specific quote. Or do you mean the discussion around secretly transifying kids at school behind their parents' back? that's not "going after trannies".
So vote double-masked Chase... or better yet, reluctantly and strategically you know who.
Reason will vote blue, no matter who.
"Trump voters" are approximately 80 million people. They all have different levels of undertanding about the fed budget and how to solve it.
Now do "The Left", starting with Ms. Pinckney.
Tribalism 101: When describing our tribe, we talk about the best 10% and attack anyone who says the dummies represent us. When describing the enemy tribe, we talk about the worst 10% and attack anyone who says the smart ones represent them.
There was already a national news story about a handful of white nationalists who are wary of Vance now that they know his wife is Indian-American. The point of the story being, Republicans racist.
But no story about how pro-Hamas terrorist sympathizers are representative of Biden voters, only that Biden has to walk a “fine line” to keep the “free Palestine”/(wipe out Israel) voters in the tent without scaring off Jewish voters who tend to vote Democratic.
But no story about...
How did you hear about it if there is no story?
No story from your fellow democrats. Goddamn you’re bad at this.
Did you even see your comment just above about a selective video?
lol, you both REGULARLY engage in that too.
Now do "We Showed Biden Voters the National Debt" and they didnt understand a word we were saying but they all agreed we should just tax billionaires and unrealized capital gains. lol. lmao even.
"Trump voters are so ignorant!" please.
I am very hopeful that the Reason crew will go to the DNC convention and have similar conversations there. I fully expect that when the Team Blue delegates are shown that picture of the national debt, that quite a few of them will say just that: “just tax the billionaires some more”.
Neither team is serious about spending, which is (I think) the point of doing these interviews.
My favorite was the lady who thinks that stopping the illegals will solve the entitlements problem.
Illegals: Paying into a social security they can never receive.
How awesome that illegals never fraudulently collect SS, or consume any other expensive services like education and healthcare, or receive welfare.
you & Emma are quite the kewl kids.
Emma’s bit was better
You’re more in Emma’s camp?
I wonder if anyone entered the Camp from the rear entrance?
lol
requires 95% improvement is better than requires 96% improvement yes
Freeze the budget at the current total with no increases for inflation. If the budget total is $5 trillion that is the budget period. If a program needs an increase the money must come from another program's budget and not an increase in total spending. Economic growth should bring the budget into balance within a 5-7 year period. Keep the budget frozen for an additional 3-5 years after balance is achieved and then only allow increases equal to the official inflation rate.
Economic growth should bring the budget into balance within a 5-7 year period.
Probably closer to 10 years considering the latest budget baselines, but yeah. This.
No, return to the 2019 budget, now that the national crisis pandemic apocalypse has passed. $4 trillion instead of $7 trillion.
If possible I would but that would cause all kinds of screaming about "massive cuts" and sabotage any attempt to bring the budget under control. Simply freezing the total budget would allow us to point out that there are no cuts unless the money was going to a more favored program. This would force programs to fight each other over money instead of fighting the budget cutters.
Remember how every writer here except good Liz complained Trump went to the LPe convention? Hilarious.
Reason should have done a skit with a food truck trying to sell vat meat at the RNC, to show what ignorant assholes the Republicans are.
Now show Biden voters.
They will think the answer is to increase taxes by 2 trillion dollars per year.
Instead of freezing spending, or (gasp) budget cuts.
If spending had been frozen in 2018, the budget would be balanced already. (It will take longer now, thanks to Congress, Trump and Biden.)
It's like the pinhead calling the pinhead a pinhead. Whoosh! "But Democrats can't do maths either! Doh!"
'America's national debt is out of control.'
No, the federal budget is out of control. From $4 trillion in 2019 to $7 trillion in 2024 is both absurd and insane (and maybe criminal). And I bet most most Trump voters would agree (and that most Biden supporters do not).
THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you all very much. This is a very important day. I’ll sign the single-biggest economic relief package in American history and, I must say, or any other package, by the way. It’s twice as large as any relief ever signed. It’s $2.2 billion, but it actually goes up to 6.2 — potentially — billion dollars — trillion dollars. So you’re talking about 6.2 trillion-dollar bill. Nothing like that. And this will deliver urgently needed relief to our nation’s families, workers, and businesses. And that’s what this is all about.
Yeah you dumb bitch, Trump, had his Treasury secretary negotiate the CARES Act, championed it, attacked any Republicans (Massie) who stood against it and signed it.
- Zach if he weren't a pussy.
And Massie negotiated another CR with Mccarthy. He isnt perfect either.
Uh-oh, you quoted Trump's own words in an unflattering manner. That means you suffer from TDS and are a leftist Nazi who wants to see him dead with your 'violent rhetoric'.
Democrats wrote the CARES Act, and Trump faced a veto-proof majority. That means anyone who says he signed it voluntarily is a leftist.
Not even close. To override a veto required a super majority of 2/3 of both houses. Trump is a political coward and could not face the fact that the CARES Act was a economic disaster.
It’s not a good situation. Aside from the fact that entitlements appear politically untouchable, all the other exorbitant spending has its constituents and vicious defenders, and as a whole it all tends to keep the economy on a short term sugar high. Nobody in government wants to be the one to stop feeding the kids candy and bring on the sugar crash, they want to keep the party going for the few years they have in office, and are happy to let problems become much worse if it means they can be deferred until it becomes someone else’s problem.
We can’t even inflate away entitlements since they get adjusted.
GW Bush doubled the national debt followed by Obama who redoubled it. Without COVID Trump's budgets would have increased the debt by over 50%. The CARES Act plus Biden's absolutely insane spending sent the debt towards another doubling over the combined Trump-Biden administrations. Who says government isn't bipartisan?
We are about to be economically electrocuted without ever touching the "third rail of politics".
You know.... even Boehm was forced to admit 70% of the growth of spending his first 3 years was medicaid, Medicare, interest in debt, and ACA. Not new spending.
OK Zach, now let's see you do this at the Democratic Convention.
Zach , try to get a spot on The All In podcast. It seems that group of VCs have Trumps ear and quite possibly a treasury cabinet position? Not sure what Sachs specific thoughts on the debt crisis fix are.
So, tell us Mr. Weissmueller, what did the democrats do to reduce the debt?
Nothing. Boaf sides.
The Republican whine that "They did it first" is getting fucking old.
The only retards using that argument is you and sarc. And it is retarded every time lol. Because you only say it if democrats get criticized.
This article is very confused, accusing Medicare and Social Security of being a debt problem. They have never increased the national debt, not one penny. IN fact, boti=h have surpluses, an simple legal remedies exist to make them solvent long term without in any way affecting the national debt. This kind of confusion preys on the gullible who are unaware that our "entitlement" programs have never incurred a penny of debt and can be made debt free in the future with simple changes in how they are funded through payroll taxes.
If you can't even means test your entitlements, stop calling yourselves conservatives and admit you're just a bunch of spendhappy proggies. Sheesh.
So you support more wealth transfers and claim not to be a leftist? The programs are already largely progressive, but not enough for you i guess. More transfers, taking from one to give to another.
Politics is a way of solving problems, meaning no one gets everything they want, but our society doesn't dissolve into literal civil war.
Agreed, all "entitlements" are basically theft and wealth transfer at the point of a gun. But practically, they are here to stay. Means testing won't fully kill the beast, but it may reign it in and reduce it to a minimum. Let's not let the best be the death of the better.
2020 US Debt $26.945T 2017 $20.245T = $6.7T
Isn't it amazing how Trump can add more debt than debt actually on ledger.
2024 US Debt $35T 2020 $26.945T = $8.1T
Oh; I get it - Trump gets blamed for Biden's Debt.
Anyone who reads Trumps $8T debt needs to accept their information is coming from a Bullsh*tter.
87% of Federal Spending is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Only 13% falls within the enumerated powers.
You have your answer.
Purge this nation of [Na]tional So[zi]al[ism] and restore the USA.
Only then and only then will it be Great Again.