comment: >
  
  The concept of money and debt is older than 6000 years. One would think that a concept that is 6000 plus years old would be common knowledge. You have individuals such as Milton Freidman, Beardsley Ruml, Lerner, and others who have given lectures and written scientific papers on economics and economic history. The level of ignorance is beyond perplexing in regards to the common person's understanding of money and debt.
context: One word. Reagaonomics. The fantastical belief that tax cuts for the rich and tax increase for working people (Reagan cut taxes for rich, raised SS/Medicare taxes) and unfunded military spending was going to "pay for itself".
  US under every president and Congress combo of GOP and Democrat had reduced the debt every year since WWII.   Reaganomics blew it up and 12 years of Reagan/Bush blew it up.
  Clinton raised taxes and we saw balanced budgets (promised by Reaganomnics but never delivered) for the first time in decades.
  SS and Medicare due to Reaganomics tax increase on working people meant that SS and Medicare didn't contribute a dime to US debt over the last 50 years and still have a surplus.
  While unfunded military is FOUR TIMES Russia and China combined is 70% of the budget and running up the debt all the time. >
  
  Reaganomics should be called social murder economics.  
  Give all the money and power to the super wealthy, and they will socially murder the public and working classes with it as they have been doing.
  Just like they genocided the natives and have been locking up minorities and denying housing, healthcare, education, and clean elections to the public.
  Whether debt is good or bad depends on the rates you can borrow and on what you spend it on. 
  Borrowing money to give it all away to the wealthy is triply bad, because not only do they oppress and socially murder the public with it, they also block functional government and necessary investments to maintain and expand their power.
  One reason for wealth taxes, in addition to solving budgetary challenges, is to ensure that the public isn't ruled by tyrannical plutocrats/kleptocrats and fascists by default. >
  
  These wealthy people also destroy the planet and expect society to bear the costs.   
  They spend money to lobby congress and legislatures for loophole bills and expect a different law to apply toward everyone else. 
  The estate taxes were always designed to take care of immediate families,  not a wealth fund for generations. 
  These people are rich, mostly trust fund babies who believe in fascism,  and doing whatever they want, and are not  educated.   They buy influence through propaganda to keep their populace informed.  They oppress society and call that freedom. >
  
  Koch Brothers got to Koch. >
  
  
  Koch Brother~~s~~
  
  FTFY >
  
  
  Koch  Brother
  
  FTFY.  One died >
  
  How the debt was created is exactly how it is being grown now……the only ability republicans have is to cut taxes. They don’t have the ability to cut spending because it would mean reducing the benefits their voters get.  Same today, which is why they’re now trying to starve the government of money forcing the democrats to make cuts, which will never happen…..we may go through some kind of shutdown, but eventually, the republicans in the house will buckle.  Recall that republicans could not cut spending when they were in full control, so there you go. >
  
  
  How the debt was created is exactly how it is being grown now
  
  Indeed, tax cuts for the rich and corporations and massive overspending on military. >
  
  Military overspending is bipartisan though. >
  
  Because every member of congress has some military contractor located in their district or state. The defense budget is essentially a manufacturing jobs bill. Once you understand this, you understand why there is never any pushback on the nearly trillion dollar a year defense spending. >
  
  Our massive military is also a huge economic bargaining chip. Not saying I support the size of the DoD budget but there is a huge global economic part to it. >
  
  1) Tax Cuts
  2) Trickle Down Economics
  3) Iraq
  4) Afghanistan
  5) Runaway Military Spending >
  
  It was caused by three things:
  1) Preventable wars
  2) Preventable recessions
  3) Tax cuts 
  We are ruled by criminals and idiots. >
  
  Bush’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the 2008 market meltdown and then Trump running the deficit like a credit card ($8T added in 4 years) played huge parts in this. >
  
  Probably a good time to remind everyone that Clinton left Bush Jr. with a projected surplus. >
  
  True, but incomplete…..the only reason Clinton had a surplus was the ridiculous short term gains during the dot com craze
  The stock market was already tanking well before the gore/bush election >
  
  Disagree, the tax rate for the rich was 35% and better enforced. The excuses never cease to amaze me though. >
  
  You can disagree, but my reply was accurate >
  
  Your reply was not at all accurate. In no way whatsoever were the dot com gains the "only reason" Clinton has a surplus. >
  
  Yes it was >
  
  You are confused…..you are posting a link to a ‘non-partisan’ partisan website … as good as it may sound to you, there are plenty of lies omission in the article >
  
  Which ones? >
  
  Not to get too political in a political sub (S)
  - The GOP best idea set forth is to defund the IRS and gut social security and medicaid.
  - kicking the can down the road is the tradition of the bipartisan old guard
  - the military industrial complex has had the United States by the balls for 70 years.  The budget allocated increases each year.
  - we have a department of defense
  - we need a department of peace >
  
  Republican Voodoo Economics, which existed before Reagan but gets a new name every 4 or 8 years. The same idiots fall for it every time, because the Media pretends that it really is something new to help the Republicans get the White House/Congress. >
  
  That and we should have allowed true capitalism correct the stock market failures instead of bailing them out… >
  
  Two reasons: Republicans, and covid. >
  
  Massive tax give aways to the rich without corresponding cuts.
  When Democrats spend the usually do their best to find funding. When republicans drastically cut, they're banking on everything falling apart to claim the government doesn't work even though things were fine before they wrecked everything. >
  
  Obviously it’s from food stamps and school lunches for poor kids.
  /s >
  
  Really? No one at the NYT understands how money is created? JFC. 
  To all those ranting about politics, do yourself a favor and learn how money is created. The US debt is simply a reflection of the money supply, and without it, the world would be economically doomed. >
  
  Because corporations,rich people and the military there's your answer.
  The US really really needs to start taxing corporations and rich a lot more and frankly control them more, force them to manufacture and less outsourcing!
  And honestly could easily be solved but both the democrats and especially republicans(how the fuck does lowering taxes help) clearly don't care and probably love this given its a easy talking point. >
  
  
  Because corporations,rich people and the military there's your answer.
  
  Because of voters, there's your answer.   Reagan to Bush to Trump, the long slide into facism in the US was due to voters. >
  
  Corporate welfare >
  
  We funneled billions into a military industry that produces little >
  
  Not taxing the wealthiest among us to keep their power in check. 
  Not using our taxes effectively to create laws and regulations that keep our economy from falling apart. We also don't create laws that appeal to people outside of our country to legally join our workforce anymore. No social safety nets. No protections from discrimination. Etc.
  Overall we are so focused on going back to the "good old days" that we will never actually have future good days. We just gotta wait for the old geezers to die off, but in the meantime they are doing their best to disenfranchise as many people as possible. >
  
  
  Overall we are so focused on going back to the "good old days"
  
  Well GOP wants to go back to slavery and women not having vote if that's what you mean by "good old days". >
  
  Once again, the NY Times twists themselves into knots trying to make it sound like Democrats are equally responsible. The ACA actually reduced the deficit. >
  
  You are exactly correct.  They try to place spending on social programs for the poor and elderly done by Democrats as equal to tax cuts for the rich and an unjustifiable decades-long war done by W and Trump.
  Have they all contributed to the deficit? Absolutely.
  Are they equally damaging to our country and our future? Fuck no.  
  As a civilized society we need to care for those that cannot care for themselves if we want a stable society.  We do not need tax cuts for the rich nor a prolonged war for a stable democracy. >
  
  We have to tax the rich into extinction and we have to do it now >
  
  Musk paid 3% on $300B.  Trump paid $0.  Exxon record profits paid $0. >
  
  Ok, Boomer. As in, ok, it was the Boomers. >
  
  Yup, Bush Jr. took Clinton's surplus and handed it to his rich buddies then started two wars and then collapsed the economy, all in a day's work for Republicans. >
  
  yep, then the subprime mortgage shit during the end of the Bush admin led to Obama spending the first couple years of his tenure righting the ship again, we had historic highs in the stock market til Trump's turn, mismanagement of covid and all the PPP loan bullshit, but that was probably one of the biggest consolidations of wealth in our history. In the weeks before covid really shut stuff down there was a ton of turbulence in the stock market, and they suspended trading and infused 1.5 trillion into the market so rich people could short airline stocks and get richer. >
  
  Going back to at least FDR the economy does better statistically under democrats than it does republicans. Like it’s not even that close really. The idea that republicans are “better stewards of the economy” is some Fox News bullshit. >
  
  Are you measuring that by president or congress? Because it would be very misleading to just look at who the president was at the time >
  
  I’m not measuring anything. Experts at major universities did. I’m pretty sure they were looking at just president not congress.