We are always days away from some unspecified horror because the debt-to-GDP ratio is slightly higher than some other countries, yet data doesn’t support it. But we have to slash social spending. To prevent the thing from happening. Whatever it is.
But there’s always money for military and tax cuts for millionaires.
Oh look, a paper that “proves” national debt leads to disaster, frequently cited to justify extreme austerity (cuts to social services). Except, it doesn’t. The data they use shows that high debt leads to economic growth. They were too stupid, sloppy, and motivated by their conclusion to actually show the evidence that supported it. They half-assed some excel formula, it showed what they wanted it to show, and they hit “publish.” Now people are poorer, sicker, or plain dead because of them.
You can (and should) be worried about national debt while still supporting social programs. Hell, solving most social problems like homelessness would ultimately grow our economy and help relieve the debt.
Definitely said the opposite of that. Social spending and fiscal responsibility. I was highlighting that social programs can be the tide that raises all boats. Once again you can be pro-social spending and anti national debt.
What even is your position on this? Social spending enables more people to participate in the economy. Taking homelessness as an example again, we spend more on social programs keeping people homeless through general aid, and medical assistance than it would cost to house them. That alone would help with the deficit. Then the stability housing would provide allows more people to participate in the economy resulting in more tax revenue, less need for assistance, larger workforce etc… This experiment has already been proven in other countries. That kind of social benefit applies to other areas as well especially in healthcare and food assistance. Sometimes the right thing is also the best thing. You know, if goodness alone isn’t enough to sway you.
Once again you can support this and still want to fix the deficit and national debt crisis.
It’s cute that you think we spend more on homelessness than it would cost to house and feed and take care of someone for a year.
I’ve never heard anyone argue that we should spend more on social programs to reduce the national debt. Kudos! I’ll vote for you when you run for office on that platform.
Racist dog whistle.
What is?
The constant fretting about debt.
We are always days away from some unspecified horror because the debt-to-GDP ratio is slightly higher than some other countries, yet data doesn’t support it. But we have to slash social spending. To prevent the thing from happening. Whatever it is.
But there’s always money for military and tax cuts for millionaires.
Hint: it’s racism. Or, perhaps, classism.
ETA: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22223190
Oh look, a paper that “proves” national debt leads to disaster, frequently cited to justify extreme austerity (cuts to social services). Except, it doesn’t. The data they use shows that high debt leads to economic growth. They were too stupid, sloppy, and motivated by their conclusion to actually show the evidence that supported it. They half-assed some excel formula, it showed what they wanted it to show, and they hit “publish.” Now people are poorer, sicker, or plain dead because of them.
You can (and should) be worried about national debt while still supporting social programs. Hell, solving most social problems like homelessness would ultimately grow our economy and help relieve the debt.
Public debt is the economy. Public spending is private savings. It’s tautological.
Stunning how little “economists” know.
But, as you’re so wise, please connect the dots for me. How does cutting public spending solve homelessness?
Definitely said the opposite of that. Social spending and fiscal responsibility. I was highlighting that social programs can be the tide that raises all boats. Once again you can be pro-social spending and anti national debt.
That’s not how money works in a fiat currency.
Sorry, they lied to you in econ 101. Loanable funds theory hasn’t been a thing in decades.
What even is your position on this? Social spending enables more people to participate in the economy. Taking homelessness as an example again, we spend more on social programs keeping people homeless through general aid, and medical assistance than it would cost to house them. That alone would help with the deficit. Then the stability housing would provide allows more people to participate in the economy resulting in more tax revenue, less need for assistance, larger workforce etc… This experiment has already been proven in other countries. That kind of social benefit applies to other areas as well especially in healthcare and food assistance. Sometimes the right thing is also the best thing. You know, if goodness alone isn’t enough to sway you.
Once again you can support this and still want to fix the deficit and national debt crisis.
It’s cute that you think we spend more on homelessness than it would cost to house and feed and take care of someone for a year.
I’ve never heard anyone argue that we should spend more on social programs to reduce the national debt. Kudos! I’ll vote for you when you run for office on that platform.
This article said nothing about how to lower the debt. They could be in favor of cutting military spending.
Where did I say they did? The fretting itself is a tell.
Making a lot of jumps in conclusions right now. Do you think youre the smartest person in every room youre in? Bcz nobody likes that guy…
I mean, it’s not harder to be smarter than the average economist. They’re willfully ignorant apologists for millionaires.
Are you aware of any exceptional economists (besides yourself, of course)? Can you divulge their name(s)?