11-17-2016, 10:18 PM
(11-17-2016, 04:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: So you really want more debt as an answer to demographic slowdown (translation, fewer people saddled with higher debt)? More deficits and debt in a period of recovery? $19 trillion is not enough fer ya?
I suspect the real objective you favor is to render government and it's "top down" activities impotent. You can correct me if I'm wrong, tho
While I wouldn't mind that, that's not my reasoning. I will point out one thing: the important issue is debt service, not debt. With interest rates at 1%, ten times as much debt is sustainable as is sustainable with interest rates at 10%. And I can remember when the latter was the case.
Quote:I suspect though that there are deficit hawks in both parties that may put a stop to Trump's deficit spending, and thus end his hope for his plan to "bring jobs back" (which it would never accomplish anyway, except for some temporary infrastructure projects). No, the time for this was 2009, and the DINOs first watered it down, and then that same Republican Party that boosts him now, brought the OBama stimulus to a screeching halt in 2011 so they could blame him for the tepid recovery in the next election, which they did.
Truth. But I don't advocate any spending increase at all. Rather, I advocate increasing the deficit through massive income tax reductions.