The Grand Illusion
A significant number of Donald Trump’s supporters cite the state of the economy and the need for fiscal sanity. I understand the concern about fiscal sanity. But for the last twenty years or so, regardless of which political party has controlled the Legislative Branch, Congress has continued to spend more than it receives in tax and tariff revenues.
However, in recent years, the Republicans have actually spent more than the Democrats, astounding as that sounds. Both Harris and Trump have promised more “tax relief,” but Harris has actually promised far less than Trump and her promises are targeted more at the middle and working classes, while Trump offers far more “tax relief” for the wealthy.
Prior to this past week, the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget calculated that the costs of Vice President Harris’s plan could range from having no significant fiscal impact to a debt increase debt of $8.10 trillion through 2035, while Trump’s plan could increase debt by between $1.45 and $15.15 trillion. In other words, Trump’s plan is far worse than that of Harris.
The Washington Post just ran an analysis of Trump’s plans for Social Security, which shows that under Trump’s plan, in six years Social Security would be unable to pay full benefits.
And those costs don’t include Trump’s newest proposed tax cuts — to make car loan interest fully tax-deductible and an additional tax cut for Americans who live abroad.
Now… some will say, “That’s just Trump’s rhetoric. He won’t or can’t do all of that.” And they’re probably right. But if that’s the case, attacking Harris’s spending plans is not only hypocritical, but also deceptive and lying, because Trump again won’t keep his word while attacking someone whose plans are more fiscally sound than his are… and yet almost half of the United States feels (I can’t say “think” here, for obvious reasons) Trump is more financially sound, despite all the calculations to the contrary.
My neighbor, a Trump sympathizer, was trying to talk to me about Trump’s financial/economic plans. My questions for her was “How many times has Trump gone through bankruptcy? How many times has Harris? Why should we trust the nation’s budget to someone who cannot manage his or her own?” There were several seconds of stony silence then an abrupt change of subject.
> Now… some will say, “That’s just Trump’s rhetoric. He won’t or can’t do all of that.”
But Harris’ words are given all sorts of scrutiny. Double standard.
Although I have to admit, Trump mostly spouts insanity, fiscal or otherwise. So I can see why people ignore anything specific he (occasionally) says…on the assumption that his words give no insight into his intent.
So I can see why they ignore what they do. But they shouldn’t.
“ … But for the last twenty years or so, regardless of which political party has controlled the Legislative Branch, Congress has continued to spend more than it receives in tax and tariff revenues.” …
UK’s new and first female Exchequer Rachel Reeves coined the term “securonomics” to refer to her version of the “modern supply-side economics” economic policy. It seems to me that she knows about the old fashioned concept of living within one’s means. For government it is newish but carries the danger of lump grants which makes corruption easier. Very different from DJ Trump, but then she is real elite (meaning that she has the necessary qualification as an economist) and about half his age. Curious, but not unexpected, that most relevant economic responsibilities in the western world have been handed over to women.
You are bringing logic to a stupidity fight.
Most campaign adds in Ohio are spouting blatantly false fear mongering vitriol and many are buying it hook, line and sinker. No matter what channel you turn to you see adds claiming that an immigrant will burst into your home and kill you at any moment or that Sherrod Brown will dig up your dead grandfather and make him trans.
You can’t be labeled a demagogue by being intellectually honest. The disheartening part is that Americans are letting candidates get away with it.