18 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
reply
9 points

I do not endorse this article, but I want to get people’s thoughts on this

permalink
report
reply
5 points

I wish it had gone into detail about just how bad Trump’s ideas are.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/05/09/politics/donald-trump-national-debt-strategy/index.html

“First of all, you never have to default because you print the money, I hate to tell you, OK?”

“I said if we can buy back government debt at a discount, in other words, if interest rates go up and we can buy bonds back at a discount – if we are liquid enough as a country, we should do that,” Trump said. “In other words, we can buy back debt at a discount.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

I’d say it’s a very reasonable conclusion that would be justified were it not for the migration of wealth. Austerity (as seen in Europe’s sluggish recovery post-2008) prolongs recession while spending stimulated recovery here (and again after 2020-21) but while consumer spending has been robust broadly here - it’s also shown a lack of spending in proportion to wealth in the highest income brackets being a larger issue. The economy is growing but investment and relative wage growth has not. Wages have been going up yes, but not enough to offset inflation.

The argument should be about who has most benefitted from growth and how to best stimulate economic growth where it’s needed.

permalink
report
reply
2 points

ELI5?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

The article is basically saying since things are pretty good now the government should save money for a rainy day instead of spending which ignores (a) the economic benefits of smart spending on infrastructure which creates jobs and improves stuff like ports and highways and (b) that wealth is there but not spread around sufficiently so people with millions now have billions and most people are still struggling.

Ironically similar in some ways to the 1920’s and….not anxious to see how that turned out happening again.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Interesting article albeit with an inflammatory title. I feel like a greater focus on tax increases is the right way to go in high inflation times since it doesn’t disproportionately harm the poor but that seems to be a tough sell politically. Rather than focusing on constraining government spending so much (although being intelligent with spending is a good idea).

permalink
report
reply
2 points

Austerity for who? It’s been non-stop austerity for ordinary people since the 2008 crash, and the people who caused the crash have been making out like bandits.

It’s the right time to tax the rich.

permalink
report
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 14K

    Posts

  • 414K

    Comments