comment: >
  
  Could probably claw back a significant amount with a forensic audit of the Pentagon, something that's never been accomplished.
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. >
  
  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. >
  
  It's only common sense if it's commonly taught. >
  
  Greedy corporations and the 1%. >
  
  Stupid white supremacist Christian voters are the real culprits. >
  
  Them too. >
  
  Republicans wracked up HUGE debt under Trump >
  
  Under every republican president since Reagan* >
  
  3 trillion was rob by Trump after he gave himself and rich people a huge tax break during his administration. The other trillion was waisted in unnecessary wars that again to Republicans - only one time we had a surplus under Clinton - Clinton did good by our government only to have Republicans destroy it - Those are indisputable FACTS! >
  
  Clinton gutted welfare >
  
  So much money goes to paying interest on that debt. And it's going to get really ugly with higher interest rates.
  We've paid interest on some of that debt for decades, far exceeding the amount some rich people saved on not paying taxes back then. >
  
  The US pays very low interest rates, because its credit rating is so good, because it always pays its debts. Republicans are attempting to end that, and then they'll say, "look how much we're paying in interest! We can't afford this, and we can't afford to borrow any more!" and they'll scream and cry that our only possible way out from the problem they created is to cut spending. They will flatly reject the idea of increasing taxes to meet the shortfall, because that would harm their puppeteers, the wealthy, whereas cutting spending will only harm worthless poor people. >
  
  Don't tax the richest people and corporations while spending money like drunken sailors. It's not difficult to figure out. We just approved an almost $1T military spending bill. For what? It's so ridiculous that there is not even a BS answer that makes any sense. >
  
  We have 750 military bases in 80 nations and another 475 in the US. >
  
  
  We have 750 military bases in 80 nations
  
  Where did this figure come from? That's nearly ten bases per county, which is just an absurd figure. And if it's counting Marine Security Guards at embassies and consulates, then it's equally absurd to call diplomatic missions "military bases." >
  
  Ok, so it's including Marines at diplomatic missions, which is absurd, as I said. A half dozen Marines providing armed security at an embassy does not a "military base" make. >
  
  It’s is absolutely insane, especially when you look at what other countries are doing. No one is ever going to invade us because of our nuclear capabilities, We seriously have no real threats to our physical nation.So why in hell are we spending a trillion dollars this year on military. >
  
  We have to spend less.  That's just a matter of fact.  But what to cut?  Devil always in the details.  Many backyards are gonna get stepped on.  And our government is not real good at helping those that get stomped.  
  We need a way where everyone gives a little (less those that can't afford to give at all).  No more tax breaks for the rich.  No more tax breaks for large corporations (because if a corporation is really a person as the SC ruled, that person can pay taxes).
  In short, we need to all chip in to get us back on the right financial track.  'Cause I guarantee we all are going to suffer and the end of the wrong track. >
  
  ​
  
  We have to spend less.  That's just a matter of fact.
  
  We should spend less but no we don't have to, just apply income tax to all income some Trumps and Musks pay taxes, about 40% at their income level but if all income is taxes tax rates can be cut top to botton and still be progressive. >
  
  Reading your replies throughout this thread I knew you were dumb but this confirmed it. What are you even saying here because it grammatically makes no sense? Are you saying to tax their income? How many times does it need to be said that this is not how taxes work and taxing their Income won’t help >
  
  Who’s going to pay for my masters degree in lesbian dance theory? >
  
  *to it self >
  
  857 billion a year x 30 years +~- >
  
  Easily? >
  
  Doesn't the government owe itself a bunch of money too that should just be canceled out? >
  
  In a way, but only about $6T of the $30T.  $1T is excess money from SS/Medicare for example which has never contributed to US debt. >
  
  The only way the US economy can function is to issue more bonds and therefore go into more debt. However, as long as the US Dollar is the international currency for trade the US can go into more debt, which it will! >
  
  Cut military by $500B.   Tax all income, $750B and that would be balanced budget.  That would result in tax cut rates for everyone so would pump money into since the tax rate cuts would affect working people who spend most of their income on food, housing, clothes, transportation etc.
  Medicare for All saves taxpayers $500B a year back onto the economy. >
  
  Fair point. First, I don't think the US will ever cut their military budget and especially not in the near future with the war in Ukraine and tense relations between the US and China . Second, tax all income has never worked or at least tax on people that should be taxed i.e the rich, has never worked. It is then the middle class that picks up the bill. I don't mean to be harsh but I think in the last 50 years the US has only ever solved economic crisis by going into more debt. >
  
  
  I don't mean to be harsh but I think in the last 50 years the US has only ever solved economic crisis by going into more debt.
  
  That is the basis of Keynesian economics is government spending is counter cyclical.  Best example being the Democratic programs to save US from Trump Covid debacle that crashed the economy. >
  
  Yes, absolutely. Hopefully these programs can be put into action and passed by congress without hold back! >
  
  Military spending is nearly untouchable. It is now the new 3rd rail of politics. It used to be SS/Medicare, but the new GQP want to kill that now. >
  
  The MAGA'ts in House have proposed cutting defense spending but indirectly, calling for spending reduced to 2022 budget level which would mean a cut of about $75B for military.
  Not likely to happen (McConnell's bridge would be cut for one thing).  More likely McConnell and Schumer cut a deal of some kind and McConnell gets six GOP House members to vote for the debt ceiling. >
  
  The only way to finance our government is through a vibrant economically sound middle class and reasonable taxes on those least effected by those taxes. The wealthy. When I say wealthy it would depend on where you live. 
  Taxes as we currently structure them in this country are obviously unsustainable. Look at the debt. It’s not just spending. The transfer of real wealth in the US since Reagan is shameful. The transfer has been from those with less to those with much, much more. Why do Republican run states seem to take more money from the National government and the blue states fund them? >
  
  Congress needs to raise taxes and cut spending. Its the only way. Neither side will do that other than kick the can down the road. >
  
  Damn. And here I was thinking my ~20K debt was insane. >
  
  Trump >
  
  I can’t read the article but I think it’s because of gross government overspending.   I support the military but I think it’s budget is bloated and there should be more oversight into the ROI.   They should be able to pass an audit.    There’s also a tremendous amount of overspending and lack of oversight on where the money goes.   I would like to see a shift away from military spending and more focus on improving the lives of Americans, I.e., trade agreements which strengthen unions and make it punitive for companies to offshore jobs and factories, more affordable health care, limit in college tuition increases, restructuring student debt so interest rates are low, enforcement of anti monopoly laws, closing tax loopholes for billionaires, etc..   We are paying interest to China and other countries to finance our spending. >
  
  
  I can’t read the article but I think it’s because of gross government overspending.
  
  70% of budget is military and US spends four times that of Russia and China combined.  70% of budget, 70% of debt. >
  
  
  Where are you getting 70?
  
  You are counting SS and Medicare which are self funded, have a $1T surplus and have not contributed to the debt and are not part of the actual budget.
  The US debt is in the Discretionary Budget, where the deficits are, where the debt is created, where military spending is 70%. >
  
  What would you cut from the military, if I may ask? >
  
  Let's start with all funding for private military contractors >
  
  You could probably cut a good amount planes/warships but we would still need actual weapons.