No one is likely to be happy with the projected higher deficits laid out in a new analysis of Kamala Harris’ and Donald Trump’s economic plans.
The analysis released Monday by the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget suggests a Harris presidency could increase the national debt over 10 years by $3.5 trillion. That’s even though the vice president’s campaign insists her proposed investments in the middle class and housing would be fully offset by higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy. Her campaign policy guide states that Harris is “committed to fiscal responsibility — making investments that will support our economy, while paying for them and reducing the deficit at the same time.”
The same analysis says former President Trump’s ideas could heap another $7.5 trillion onto the debt and possibly as much as $15.2 trillion. That’s even though he suggests growth would be so strong under his watch that no one would need to worry about deficits.
New analysis suggests national debt could increase under Harris,
Oh no.
My life won’t change.
but it would surge under Trump
OH NO!!!
My life won’t change.
Guess my vote will be based on things like which one of them says they’re going to be a dictator who will deport millions of people he calls vermin.
You have nothing to worry about if you’re not vermin. Have you checked recently?
I’m not vermin yet, but I’m Jewish, my daughter is Jewish and queer and even my white, Christian wife is in trouble because she’s a librarian. So basically we’re all going to be the vermin sooner or later.
Oof, that mix is like almost asking for it. You should arm yourself. 😂
I’ve armed myself with dual citizenship to the UK, which is where we’ll be off to some time between November and January, depending on the outcome of the election.
Ah, not bad. Probably better than Canada in some regards.
I technically qualify for German citizenship, but it will be a big bureaucratic hurdle and one I would wait until I got to the UK to tackle.
Everything is a big bureaucratic hurdle in Germany. Hope you make it across to Europe though, it’s much calmer if not completely chill over here.
Und außerdem, wie ist mit deinen Deutschsprachkenntnissen?
The last time a President ran a balanced budget was Clinton. He did so with the support of the House, by increasing taxes on the wealthy, energy consumption, and Social Security.
The only chance Harris would have at running a balanced budget would be if Democrats obtain control of the House.
We don’t need a balanced budget. The government is not a business.
Foreign ownership of US debt is risky, and could lead to instability of the US Dollar.
As of April 2024, the five countries owning the most US debt are Japan ($1.1 trillion), China ($749.0 billion), the United Kingdom ($690.2 billion), Luxembourg ($373.5 billion), and Canada ($328.7 billion).
https://usafacts.org/articles/which-countries-own-the-most-us-debt/
Could and would have to dramatically different meaning. Media makes the sound on par.
“Could” doing some heavy “bOtH SidES!” lifting in that headline.
Yeah that headline is all sorts of manipulative. Are they counting on people stopping reading at the first comma?
Bluntly, neither of them are willing to do the thing necessary to balance the budget, or decrease the national debt, which is raise taxes back to the level they were at before Nixon took office. There’s not a quick and easy solution to any of this, but the top marginal tax rates are ridiculously low, and we’ve made is easy and cheap to outsource production.
When you’re already spending less than the minimum needed to keep a country running effectively, you can’t simply cut your way out of debt; you need to increase revenues, and that means taxation. The smartest taxes are progressive; they’re taxes on wealth and on income, taxes that affect the poor and the rich proportionately, which is to say progressively. Flat taxes, sales taxes, etc., are inherently regressive, affecting the poor disproportionately, and are thus less effective at increasing tax revenues.
It is a wealth transfer, from the middle class to the wealthy
It’s maybe worth pointing out that the analysis covers 10 years and appears to account for $0 in GDP growth (and corresponding tax base growth) dependent on those policies. If I’m reading this correctly (big if to be fair): Assuming the government continues to capture 17.5% of US GDP, Harris’ policies would need to generate roughly 4% GDP growth per year (no small feat, granted) to be net zero relative to absolute debt levels and less than that to be net zero relative to debt as a percentage of GDP. Government expenditure is not like consumer spending because almost every dollar it spends looks less like consumption and more like an investment, and leveraging investments is actually a valid strategy, especially when you have the economic momentum/inertia of a nation state to balance the risks involved with debt, and that is before you even get into fiscal monetary policy
I wish capitalist news would stop using this misleading propaganda: It’s not really a “debt” when they can print the money.
They’ll never go bankrupt although they may collapse the economy. In theory it’s ok to print money for good things (eg. healthcare). The problem is that they only print money for bad things (genocide, bailouts, capitalist/corporate welfare, etc.).
Going into debt is how they “print” money. Those are the same thing. Having debt isn’t necessarily a bad thing though, but creating too much money can increase inflation. If not handled carefully it would collapse the economy as you elide over.
Ironically, inflation is how the government can get out of debt, because it decreases the real value of existing debt (as long as those loans are in USD). However it also increases the cost of new borrowing.
