Promises of "free" money

[ZenMode]

There doesn't seem to be any urgency, on the part of either party, to address the debt or recent deficits. This has been the case since the 90's when Ross Perot had some success running a campaign of fiscal responsibility.

It seems to me that both Trump and Harris are putting more focus on giveaways than any presidential candidate duo I can remember. Some in the form of tax credits, others in the form of continuing tax cuts, loan forgiveness, dissolving existing debt, etc.

To me, this is a concerning trend that is likely to only worsen our financial situation. Why isn't there more concern about this among Americans?

 

[CFordUNC]

A substantial portion of the electorate claims to believe that we are living in a veritable economic depression despite limitless evidence indicating directly the opposite, and you are asking why more Americans aren’t well informed enough to express concern about our country’s “financial situation”?

Interesting question posed by someone with this very tagline in his posts: "If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide that proves they should value evidence."

 

[336Heel]

There doesn't seem to be any urgency, on the part of either party, to address the debt or recent deficits. This has been the case since the 90's when Ross Perot had some success running a campaign of fiscal responsibility.

It seems to me that both Trump and Harris are putting more focus on giveaways than any presidential candidate duo I can remember. Some in the form of tax credits, others in the form of continuing tax cuts, loan forgiveness, dissolving existing debt, etc.

To me, this is a concerning trend that is likely to only worsen our financial situation. Why isn't there more concern about this among Americans?

If you're truly concerned about this topic then Harris is the candidate you should choose.

https://thehill.com/business/4932190-trump-harris-economy-survey/

The budget watchdog found Harris’s plans could add $3.5 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, compared to an estimated $7.5 trillion boost to the national debt from Trump’s plans.

 

[rodoheel]

There doesn't seem to be any urgency, on the part of either party, to address the debt or recent deficits. This has been the case since the 90's when Ross Perot had some success running a campaign of fiscal responsibility.

It seems to me that both Trump and Harris are putting more focus on giveaways than any presidential candidate duo I can remember. Some in the form of tax credits, others in the form of continuing tax cuts, loan forgiveness, dissolving existing debt, etc.

To me, this is a concerning trend that is likely to only worsen our financial situation. Why isn't there more concern about this among Americans?

This is purely a matter pf human psychology. Politicians promise "free" money because it works.

We need overall tax increases - especially in the upper tax brackets (and I would add higher tax brackets). But running on tax increases is political suicide. That's the fault of the electorate, not the politicians.

 

[superrific]

This entire thread is an attempt at a both sides troll. One candidate has been more focused on giveaways than any candidate ever. Harris, by contrast, is running a standard campaign with standard policy proposals. She's not showing up to events and then randomly promising stuff to make that particular audience cheer.

 

[ZenMode]

If you're truly concerned about this topic then Harris is the candidate you should choose.

https://thehill.com/business/4932190-trump-harris-economy-survey/

The budget watchdog found Harris’s plans could add $3.5 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, compared to an estimated $7.5 trillion boost to the national debt from Trump’s plans.

Once again, choosing between the lesser of two evils while not addressing a problem and continuing to make to worse.

 

[superrific]

Off the top of my head, Harris is offering:

• Money for new home purchases
• Extending current tax cuts
• Extended Medicare coverage

Like I said, standard campaign fare. No candidate since Mondale has campaigned on raising taxes (your second bullet). Extending Medicare coverage is a legit policy proposal that is far more than a giveaway -- it's a question of what our federal health policy should be. Money for new home purchases is a small one-time payment of the sort that every candidate trots out in a campaign (and in SOTU addresses too).

Meanwhile, we've never seen a candidate call for eliminating taxes entirely on a vast swath of arbitrarily chosen income streams. No taxes on tips; no taxes on overtime; no taxes on SS; no taxes on car loans; restore SALT; tax cuts for corporations that manufacture here; etc.

Again, this is a bad faith thread. If you want to talk about cutting the deficit, you would ask about that. You wouldn't start with "both candidates are equally bad in this regard." Also there was a budget surplus during most of Clinton's second term. The spending didn't get out of control until W. In Obama's presidency, the deficit shrank by half. Then the out of control spending and tax cuts from Trump.

Last response on this thread. Ain't got time for this.

 

[336Heel]

Once again, choosing between the lesser of two evils while not addressing a problem and continuing to make to worse.

Your throw away vote is gonna show them. I threw my vote away in 2016 and regret it to this day.

 

[finesse]

Once again, choosing between the lesser of two evils while not addressing a problem and continuing to make to worse.

You wouldn't have all these problems if you had the initiative to read some economic history. Since 1970, most of the economic distress and almost none of the job creation has been on the Republican watch. St. Reagan almost tripled the national debt. George W. Bush passed on a huge obligation to Obama with the misguided wars. By almost every metric, we've done better economically under Democrats. When you grasp this (It is to laugh), come back and nitpick, whine and misconstrue some more.

 

[ZenMode]

Like I said, standard campaign fare. No candidate since Mondale has campaigned on raising taxes (your second bullet). Extending Medicare coverage is a legit policy proposal that is far more than a giveaway -- it's a question of what our federal health policy should be. Money for new home purchases is a small one-time payment of the sort that every candidate trots out in a campaign (and in SOTU addresses too).

Meanwhile, we've never seen a candidate call for eliminating taxes entirely on a vast swath of arbitrarily chosen income streams. No taxes on tips; no taxes on overtime; no taxes on SS; no taxes on car loans; restore SALT; tax cuts for corporations that manufacture here; etc.

Again, this is a bad faith thread. If you want to talk about cutting the deficit, you would ask about that. You wouldn't start with "both candidates are equally bad in this regard." Also there was a budget surplus during most of Clinton's second term. The spending didn't get out of control until W. In Obama's presidency, the deficit shrank by half. Then the out of control spending and tax cuts from Trump.

Last response on this thread. Ain't got time for this.

I thought I removed my response to you and edited my post that was intended for only 336heel. Since I didn't intend to reply to you, I didn't include a full list of giveaways.

• Continuing most/all Trump's tax cuts
• Extending Medicare coverage
• Money for home purchases and opening businesses
• Some type of forgiveness of student loan debt
• Some type of forgiveness for medical bills
• Increased child tax credits
• No taxes on tips (new)

And, the fact that it's "standard campaign fare" to give away money, without accounting for it, is the crux of the issue.

 

[NYCBlueBlood]

This entire thread is an attempt at a both sides troll. One candidate has been more focused on giveaways than any candidate ever. Harris, by contrast, is running a standard campaign with standard policy proposals. She's not showing up to events and then randomly promising stuff to make that particular audience cheer.

 

[aGDevil2k]

There doesn't seem to be any urgency, on the part of either party, to address the debt or recent deficits. This has been the case since the 90's when Ross Perot had some success running a campaign of fiscal responsibility.

It seems to me that both Trump and Harris are putting more focus on giveaways than any presidential candidate duo I can remember. Some in the form of tax credits, others in the form of continuing tax cuts, loan forgiveness, dissolving existing debt, etc.

To me, this is a concerning trend that is likely to only worsen our financial situation. Why isn't there more concern about this among Americans?

Dont freaking boside this shit.

Trump would absolutely destroy the debt with his plans. Every economist is putting the red light on it.

 

[ZenMode]

This is purely a matter pf human psychology. Politicians promise "free" money because it works.

We need overall tax increases - especially in the upper tax brackets (and I would add higher tax brackets). But running on tax increases is political suicide. That's the fault of the electorate, not the politicians.

Since you responded the topic.....

So, we're in an unavoidable death spiral where politicians are unwilling to be the adults in the room in favor of self preservation in the form of placating voters?

 

[BlueSmoke]

She's not showing up to events and then randomly promising stuff to make that particular audience cheer.

Sadly she is. I would call her 1 million forgivable loan to black business exactly that. Has anyone done the math on the cost of that program iif only a small number get those loans? Its astronomical.

I am very surprised the Republicans are letting her get away with that promise. Massive error.

 

[rodoheel]

Since you responded the topic.....

So, we're in an unavoidable death spiral where politicians are unwilling to be the adults in the room in favor of self preservation in the form of placating voters?

I wouldn't necessarily call it a death spiral - I would call it the same as it's always been in that regard. You have to placate voters to win elections. Being right doesn't matter if you don't win. First you have to win; then you get to work on policy. But I do think there's reason to worry that the political will to materially increase taxes will never exist, because voters will always react negatively to it (so negatively that any tax increases will likely be undone as soon as they're passed).

Ultimately I don't really know what you do to convince voters that the sky is blue when they're already convinced it's orange. The right-wing movement to increase distrust in both media and government has been very successful, and so the rest of us have to operate in a bizarro world much of the time. One side of the political aisle is clearly not willing to be the adults in the room, and the other side can't do it alone because if they do, they just lose and it all falls apart anyway. Not a great place to be in, I'll admit.

 

[rodoheel]

Sadly she is. I would call her 1 million forgivable loan to black business exactly that. Has anyone done the math on the cost of that program iif only a small number get those loans? Its astronomical.

I am very surprised the Republicans are letting her get away with that promise. Massive error.

The promise wasn't for forgivable loans of $1,000,000. It was for up to one million forgivable loans of $20,000. The total cost if every single one of those loans is made and every single cent is forgiven (which obviously won't happen) would be $20 billion, which is hardly "astronomical."

 

[superrific]

Sadly she is. I would call her 1 million forgivable loan to black business exactly that. Has anyone done the math on the cost of that program iif only a small number get those loans? Its astronomical.

I am very surprised the Republicans are letting her get away with that promise. Massive error.

The program would cost less than 20B dollars. That's because it isn't $1000000 loans to an indeterminate number of people. It's 1M loans of up to $20K each. As a one time cost, that's a tiny drop in the bucket. Trump is out there with multiple different trillion dollar "plans"

 

[BlueSmoke]

The program would cost less than 20B dollars. That's because it isn't $1000000 loans to an indeterminate number of people. It's 1M loans of up to $20K each. As a one time cost, that's a tiny drop in the bucket. Trump is out there with multiple different trillion dollar "plans"

Oh, thank you for clearing up my confusion.

 

[lawtig02]

I wouldn't necessarily call it a death spiral - I would call it the same as it's always been in that regard. You have to placate voters to win elections. Being right doesn't matter if you don't win. First you have to win; then you get to work on policy. But I do think there's reason to worry that the political will to materially increase taxes will never exist, because voters will always react negatively to it (so negatively that any tax increases will likely be undone as soon as they're passed).

Ultimately I don't really know what you do to convince voters that the sky is blue when they're already convinced it's orange. The right-wing movement to increase distrust in both media and government has been very successful, and so the rest of us have to operate in a bizarro world much of the time. One side of the political aisle is clearly not willing to be the adults in the room, and the other side can't do it alone because if they do, they just lose and it all falls apart anyway. Not a great place to be in, I'll admit.

Yeah, I just look at things like this in terms of the overall platforms. Is it worth giving potentially-forgivable loans to black-owned small businesses while also advocating for higher taxes on the wealthiest individuals? I'd say yes. Is it worth exempting tip-earners and SS recipients from pretty much all federal income taxes and giving the ~80 million living in several southern battleground states a free Generac generator paid for by Uncle Sam, while also slashing taxes for the wealthiest Americans and corporations? I'd say that's absurdly fiscally irresponsible. All "giveaways" are certainly not the same.

 

[NYCBlueBlood]