111–120 of 169 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you catch the part where Trump repeatedly claimed to reduce the debt once in office and has since done the opposite (despite the smoke and mirrors called DOGE).
So you're saying that if we want something we should vote for the opposite?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you catch the part where Trump repeatedly claimed to reduce the debt once in office and has since done the opposite (despite the smoke and mirrors called DOGE).
So you're saying that if we want something we should vote for the opposite?
You've been conned. I would feel bad, if this wasn't, like, con number 401.
How do you guys see this ending? I don't see this ending well but I can't imagine what happens. Seems unsustainable but nobody wants to deal with it.
I think between 5-10 years US will run into a deficit spiral: US will not be able to control its deficit. When that time comes make sure you will not need any additional credit and you have enough savings for 6 months to a year of expenses. In the shorter term I predict that next summer Trump will replace Jerome Powell with someone else who will bring short term interest rates to close to 0%. This will allow the US a…
How do you guys see this ending? I don't see this ending well but I can't imagine what happens. Seems unsustainable but nobody wants to deal with it.
Badly and abruptly. As long as the US maintains the western worlds largest military, I don't see the government being pressured to do much of anything remotely close to dealing with the problem in a long term (and likely painful) way. If that power ever gets displaced, it'll tank the US quickly. As soon as the US loses its privileged status (something Trump is rapidly deteriorating) this becomes a serious burden that…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At some point there will be a need for austerity measures and rising taxes, and whoever will do that will be very unpopular.
DOGE already started the austerity measures, and tariffs are taxes, so it's already in play. Popularity may be moot depending upon how things play out in the next couple years.
So weve lost a bunch of shit and gained... let me check here... oh, -2 trillion dollars. Okay.
But at least some poor sick people will lose Medicaid. Glad to see we're burning our money and then spending more on running the AC full blast so we don't boil.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The political discourse globally has turned into a giant "us vs them". I'm Polish/Italian and in my countries it's similar to USA, we've just voted a populist troll as a president not because we like him but "because he's not one of those we despise". Marketing, data scientists and strategist have effectively manipulated public opinion into further polarization.
This entire thread is a good example of the kind of rhetoric that led us there.
The amount of snarky comments here is truly insane. Flippant stuff used to be downvoted/shadowed immediately on HN, now it seems to be the median in some political threads. This started changing around 2019 but it's really accelerated lately.
It's a bit disappointing. This is HN, and this is actually important and interesting. It's a shame this thread is just a group therapy session of people blaming Trump for everything bad that's ever happened.
The reality is if you actual listen to Trump, which none of his supporters ever do, but if you did, you'd know his platform is "make everything more shit for everyone, and we'll save some money... maybe"
Well, he did thing 1. But the saving money part? How much are we saving now, like, -2 Trillion?
And, in exchange, more poor people on Medicaid will lose coverage, everything is more expensive, and we've gutted just about every social service we can.
Its like paying 200 dollars for a burger and then instead of giving you a burger they actually reach down your throat and rip out your small intestine.
This is just a bad deal. Or, in Trump language, "I told them - this is the worst deal ever. That's what I told them. Yeah. And everyone agreed with me. Yeah yeah. The biggest, most garbage deal ever"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please vote next election and every election for politicians that will reduce the debt and deficit. It is important.
Which ones are those again? Because both parties are doing the opposite
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
One campaigned on reducing the deficit; one did not. It seems reasonable to expect a smaller deficit from the one who campaigned on that, doesn't it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
2 years ago, Wharton predicted that the U.S. debt would be defaulted on in twenty years [0]. > Under current policy, the United States has about 20 years for corrective action after which no amount of future tax increases or spending cuts could avoid the government defaulting on its debt whether explicitly or implicitly (i.e., debt monetization producing significant inflation). Unlike technical defaults where payment…
Why would a currency issuer make the decision to default on bonds it's issued, when it can always issue new bonds and roll them over, or if it wanted to the Fed can always just buy the bonds back? Don't think of the US (or any monetarily sovereign Government) as having the constraints of a household or business... It's fundamentally different and we make major errors (like the crazy idea the US would default) when we…
> defaulting on its debt whether explicitly or implicitly (i.e., debt monetization producing significant inflation).
The real constraint isn’t solvency, it’s inflation and currency value. If deficits are monetized well beyond the economy’s capacity, inflation will rise and long term yields will climb, unless the central bank caps them, which then shifts the pressure to prices and the currency.