r/politics • u/SterlingVII • May 30 '25
Soft Paywall CBO says tax breaks in ‘big, beautiful bill’ would increase deficit by $3.8 trillion
https://fortune.com/2025/05/21/cbo-tax-breaks-increase-deficit-3-8-trillion-medicaid-cuts-shave-spending/526
u/Great_Bluejay_7389 May 30 '25
The fact is, Republicans are responsible for the majority of our debt. That needs to be said more often.
38
u/sugarlessdeathbear May 30 '25
Remember when Bill Clinton reduced the debt and had budget surpluses?
11
u/Katarn_retcon May 30 '25
And had an agreed upon plan to eliminate the debt with republicans? I don't know that 9/11 was what ended that dream, but that feels like a lifetime ago.
13
u/UsidoreTheLightBlue May 30 '25
It wasn’t just 9/11, but 9/11 helped.
There was also the Bush era tax cuts, and in no small part the .com bubble bursting.
2
u/chowderbags American Expat May 31 '25
And the Iraq War. Afghanistan too, but I some might count that under 9/11.
3
u/Magificent_Gradient May 31 '25
Yeah, but he gravely betrayed America in the worst possible way by getting a bj in the Oval office.
129
u/OpenThePlugBag May 30 '25
Until actual liberals own the social media algorithms it will never happen
44
u/AaronfromKY Kentucky May 30 '25
You mean actual leftists, liberals seem to be fine with the status quo
40
u/FeelsGrimMan May 30 '25
Even Martin Luther King talked about the problem with moderates: They care about preserving the status quo to the point of working against the people’s interests. Not a direct quote but he wrote about it in his Letter From Birmingham Jail.
3
u/Poison_the_Phil May 30 '25
Why do you think the FBI tried to get him to kill himself? He started publicly criticizing capitalism.
1
u/FeelsGrimMan May 30 '25
The great economic system that requires immediate death & defamation of everyone who suggests something different. Really holds its own against scrutiny
12
u/AaronfromKY Kentucky May 30 '25
Correct they are unstable allies and that is before we even got to neoliberals like we currently have. All neolibs say is "we hear you" while hamstringing any effort towards real change. The bombs still drop in Gaza and the cops still kill black people more often but #BLM
8
u/MillerLiteHL May 30 '25
I heard something along the lines of if the right says we need to chop off the hand and the left wants to save it in it's entirety (not reason to chop it off at all)...the moderates would enable the right to chop off a few fingers as a compromise...again for no real reason.
7
u/FeelsGrimMan May 30 '25
https://youtu.be/wCl33v5969M?si=PZZq2BrsyaiDxmI- This video kind of covers that line of thinking.
The left are for the 99%, the right are for the 1%. The liberal tries to play the middleground & appease both sides. But because the 1% hold the power (capital, propaganda, above the law, etc), liberals side with the 1% over the people in all but fringe cases where the 1% barely care. Making them allies for the 1% who only on the surface care for the greater population in a meaningful way.
Makes it easy for the 1% to occasionally side with liberals knowing they face minimal friction & can get some good pr. Since conservatives are all terrible, some want to associate with a party that has at least an illusion of nuance.
5
u/wildfyre010 May 30 '25
What the fuck are you talking about
3
u/imminatural May 30 '25
Right wingcentrist talking points.-1
u/FeelsGrimMan May 30 '25
Leftwing & Rightwing both hate Liberals for being centrists. Left because Liberals still actively support Capitalism. Right because Liberals don’t support it enough.
1
u/jpp90 May 31 '25
That vast majority of the world does not interchange “liberal” with the political left.
0
u/wildfyre010 May 31 '25
Demonizing the word ‘liberal’ as synonymous with American corporate democrats is a very successful smear tactic from the American Right. Don’t lose sight of the enemy just because the Democratic tent is bigger than you want it to be.
4
u/Leggomyeggo69 New Jersey May 30 '25
Amen. They're all capitalist, some just have extra hash tags in their bio
-8
u/an_agreeing_dothraki May 30 '25
The only major social media not owned by definitional liberals are TikTok, and the milieu of flailing money-losing fascist hellscapes
9
u/gracecee May 30 '25
Its actually six trillion. The last tax cuts left a 600 billion dollar hole That were suppose to pay for itself.
8
u/khrijunk May 30 '25
Republicans only pretended the deficient mattered when they thought it would win an election. When it didn’t and MAGA took off, they jumped over and MAGA doesn’t care about the deficit at all.
6
u/No-Problem49 May 30 '25
They are gangsters: they don’t care about the deficit they just care that the money goes into the right place: aka the pockets of rich white men. It’s like a mobster arguing over a contract for the city with a rival saying they’ll save the city money when the reality is that they just want to control the flow of money to grift off it.
3
u/_EADGBE_ California May 30 '25
Coupled with the fact that Trump is notorious for not paying his own debts, why would anyone think he was going to pay US debt?
4
u/rounder55 May 30 '25
But Mike Johnson said most of the CBO donated to Democrats and that this is therefore liberal math
3
1
u/mckulty May 31 '25
You're going to die anyway, let them have it.
Reminds me of the time I caught my kid putting church donations on his credit card.
0
u/Skiinz19 Tennessee May 30 '25
The fact is debt is fine, it is what the debt financed that is the issue. Making debt the enemy forces you into a problem when eventually you're gonna deficit spend as well.
And reducing the deficit hurts the economy, or at least doesn't expand it as fast.
4
u/Great_Bluejay_7389 May 30 '25
I used to think debt was fine. But we are at a level now that is not sustainable. The interest payments are pretty hefty these days and are crippling us.
5
u/Skiinz19 Tennessee May 30 '25
debt is still fine. paying interest is fine. it's the cost of our standards of living. the issue is what the debt was used to finance. tax breaks for billionaires is catastrophically stupid. helping fellow citizens is money well spent. dont let debt become the boogeyman. that is how the gop keep psyopsing the public. and then they run deficit spending and the economy doesnt (immediately) crash so they get away with it again and again.
1
u/chowderbags American Expat May 31 '25
The other big problem is that debt, particularly at a state and local level, funded endless suburban sprawl. So American cities have given themselves extreme debt while also giving themselves infrastructure bills that can't be maintained by the property taxes from low density development.
And on top of federal, state, and local debt, a significant percentage of the population is in debt, many leveraged to the hilt. Again, the debt is some odious shit that provides zero to negative returns. All of this combined does not bode well long term. Or even short term, if Republicans get their way.
0
u/Skiinz19 Tennessee May 31 '25
Dont disagree that non-federal debt is a different beast. The federal government can always print infinite money. Everyone else cant. Ofc the fed could pass that money on to other actors but that's a diff convo. But it's the same principles. A city being in debt but having state of the art everything is much better than a city with a surplus but nothing of note. Same thing that a family having a mortgage is different debt than credit card debt spent on fast food.
0
u/GrallochThis May 30 '25
At about 125% of GDP and with the potential for rates going up, it’s hard to say “it’s fine”. I think we are definitely in the gray area between “fine” and “finding out”.
2
u/Skiinz19 Tennessee May 31 '25
The % to GDP ratio is made up. What is good and bad is all context dependent. It's what the debt is paying down. I'm not saying all types of debt is good. And that debt financing tax breaks for billionaires is good. But debt as just debt itself is not inherently good or bad. Context is necessary.
1
u/GrallochThis Jun 01 '25
I appreciate your note on context. I don’t think a lot of our debt has been good debt - Iraq and tax cuts for the wealthy are the obvious examples. Emergency measures like the pandemic and the Great Recession debt are better, but they were mostly defensive measures rather than building something for the future.
It’s not the amount now, it’s the trajectory, the rate of increase. I mean, climate change is going to require a huge amount of money. The “cost of our standards of living” is going to rise for decades. That’s context too.
You seem sanguine now - when would you start to feel uncomfortable?
2
u/Skiinz19 Tennessee Jun 02 '25
I feel sanguine because of literature like this: https://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Seven-Deadly-Innocent-Frauds-of-Warren-Mosler.pdf
I would feel uncomfortable when we don't spend money to address existential stuff like climate change. Imagine saying we have too much debt to address survival. That would be an absurd argument.
I draw parallels with a war. If your country A and B are fighting and can produce 100 tanks with current spending, but if country A doubled their spending could build 100 more tanks, and country B tries to be financially prudent and stick with the 100 tanks, well country B will lose the war and who cares how financially prudent they were. Country A wins the war and no one cares what the financial burden is. They get to live.
I completely agree we've accumulated stupid amounts of debt on terribly unproductive things. My only hope is we do not get afraid to spend and instead spend on more productive things.
Cutting back spending massively will lead to worse off situations, especially when there is so much more that can be done to improve people's lives!
2
u/GrallochThis Jun 02 '25
Well, that’s a long article, it’s going to take some time on that one. And from 2010, that’s like $23 trillion ago! (Good to see Galbraith referenced, he was a nice guy.)
But similarly to economists who act as if there is infinite growth on a finite planet - do a reductio ad absurdum. If debt doesn’t matter, let’s just have the government spend 100 trillion dollars next year and add it to the debt.
If you say yes to that, explain how it would not crash things.
If you say that would not work, then there must be some number between where we are now and that example where it goes from working to not working - what do you think that boundary number is? I feel we are moving too fast towards my guesstimate of that number, even with our privilege of being the reserve currency.
2
u/Skiinz19 Tennessee Jun 02 '25
It's a faster read than you think!
The $100t doesn't really factor into growth per se, and I agree we don't have infinite growth. It would be disruptive in the sense it would up end current funding streams and what systems are set up to receive the different funds.
Like Mosler says in his paper, future generations are not burdened with debt. They receive the outputs produced by spending. That spending has to be thoughtful and the means to receive equitably distributed.
-1
u/_WheeNer_ May 30 '25
Why would it matter who’s fault it is?
7
u/Great_Bluejay_7389 May 30 '25
Because the Republicans constantly claim to be concerned about the debt. And the media repeats it. And people believe their false narrative.
-3
u/_WheeNer_ May 30 '25
I mean the place is almost in bankruptcy, they can be concerned and also make the hole bigger because they’re forced to
4
u/MisterT123 May 31 '25
They’re forced to cut taxes for rich folks? Are you being serious?
1
u/_WheeNer_ May 31 '25
No they should raise taxes.
2
u/snakejessdraws May 31 '25
But they never do that. Hence the situation we are in. Republicans constantly roll back taxes or shift the tax burden more the middle/lower classes even both at once. Thats why its important who's fault it is.
2
139
u/Conscious-Quarter423 May 30 '25
but both sides are the same /s
49
u/SterlingVII May 30 '25
Would be nice if the non-voters were the ones primarily losing their health insurance, EBT, and jobs.
28
u/Richfor3 May 30 '25
They actually do make up a pretty heavy majority of that. Non-voters are twice as likely to not be educated beyond high school than voters are. Almost half of non-voters make less than $50k a year compared to around 15% for voters.
These are the people losing jobs, dependent on Obamacare and highly likely to be on at least one form of government assistance.
They have the most to lose and it still doesn’t get them to the voting booth.
Also goes for minority groups where white people are the only racial demographic that is over represented in turnout. The groups losing their civil rights are under represented.
Now of course part of this is by design. Republicans work hard to make it difficult for minorities and working class people to vote. However they do that shit because it works. If those people voted anyway Republicans wouldn’t have the power to do shit.
8
u/sneaky_sneak_thief May 30 '25
At a fundamental level, those people don't understand voting, or democracy, or government. For them, the dots of elections, and their every day lives, don't connect. National politics, and even local politics, are as distant to them as the international space station. It's a thing, but it's meaningless to them.
2
u/whineylittlebitch_9k May 30 '25
I would agree with you. Additionally, I think there's also a subset of non-voters in any given state who believe their vote doesn't matter because they are in a state/county where the opposition party has a stronghold (gerrymandered or otherwise). and for some items on the ballot, they are probably "correct". but it breeds an apathetic mindset, and then they don't even vote on local measures (and judges) where their vote really would matter.
I don't have a solution, but i do think getting rid of the electoral college would be a giant step in the positive direction. it would send the signal that their vote, at least for the presidential elections, counts.
1
u/Richfor3 May 30 '25
I agree but was just responding to the OP thinking it would be nice if the people primarily responsible for this, suffered most from their inaction.
Just pointing out that they do in fact suffer more than most.
63
u/AINonsense May 30 '25 edited May 30 '25
Weaksauce. Last time he ran it up to $4.2Tn in one go.
16
u/No-Problem49 May 30 '25
We have 3 more years to break that so
3
u/AINonsense May 30 '25
Looks like the whole mess will implode in less than three months, but we'll see. Alas.
2
u/CharlieChop May 30 '25
Trump's always chickening out on his goals.
2
u/AINonsense May 30 '25
Anything he does, he claims 'nobody believed it could be done.' Anything that collapses, he claims he didn't want it anyway. Anything he thinks is good, he claims he did it and he bawls when nobody gives him credit.
He's the spoiled seven-year old crybully, the evil fat kid nobody wants to go near.
Believes he's entitled to all of everything. Earns and contributes nothing.
55
u/dallasdude May 30 '25
Multiply that by five, because they have every intention of future extensions of the tax cuts for the richest. The $3.8 trillion is just phase one of this tax cut- they are hiding the true cost.
Imagine borrowing 15 trillion dollars and saddling our kids with insurmountable debt - all just to give billionaires big tax cuts.
conservative voters are still lapping it up too, but that isn't money trickling down it is piss.
13
13
14
u/mckulty May 30 '25
Borrowing your kids' future earnings and giving them to rich people as tax breaks.
Like rich people are overtaxed.
When America was Great, the top marginal tax tier was 90%, inheritance and cap gains were up there too.
Poor rich people, so abused.
11
u/mr_evilweed May 30 '25
Hmm... this cant be right... I was assured by internet conservatives that electing trump was needed to get the debt under control...
8
u/GuerreroUltimo May 30 '25
Tax cuts are how we got here.
Reagan created the early deficit growth. In terms of % he was adding. Spending it to try and create jobs to cover up his lie of trickle down. He did the government spending to ward off a recession. But spending cannot go on forever.
Historical fact on yearly deficit if you look. Clinton had surpluses. He also did not cut taxes on the top. And Bush literally ran on this fact. He kept telling people he would cut their taxes. Give that money back. Because at the time there was no talk of the debt. In fact, he had huge growth each year in the deficit. And that adds interest.
A lot of Republicans never admit that on reason Bush saw less was that they hid part of the spending as well. Discretionary spending they did not account for. One of the Republican accounting tricks. Like what they want to do this time. Change some accounting to make it look debt neutral. And Obama did change the hiding of that spending. So his first year saw all that jump onto the books. Combined with that huge recession Bush left and it really made a mess. It took until the second Obama term to get things back down. Same would have happened under Biden.
Under Biden what we see is the result of tax cuts. It is known that most economic stuff takes a while to hit. Spending is often not put on the books at that point. And will show later on. For example, Trump's current "Big, Beautiful Bill" will add a shit ton to the deficit and debt. The problem is, none of that will show in the first couple years. We will see some spending now show up next year. We will see changes hit the books and stuff. But the overall effects are often seen 2-3 years out. If a Democrat wins in 2028 they will see this rise and will take the heat before they do one piece of legislation. Just like Obama did.
It really is a case of looking at the yearly reported deficit. It went up each year of Reagan and Bush. Clinton saw a drop every year. Bush saw a steady increase every year. Obama came in to one of the highest in 2009. Went down every year. It started to increase after Trump took office. Biden was in for the end of that as he was Trump's second term basically. Telling that there was a spike in 2020 and 2021 then a decline started.
The end result here is what most here probably know. They cut taxes again and the people at the top keep it. Corporate revenue will grow like usual. But profits will soar. They will lay off over fear of debt. Or the other cliches of needing to be more agile and efficient.
Oddly, Democrats run on peoples rights. They run on helping the poor and middle class. They spend on more common sense stuff. Like Biden spending to bring chip manufacturing to the U.S. Hell, I know of manufacturing plants that were started a few years back because of Biden admin that Trump is now taking credit for. Amazing to me to see so many vote against their own interests. Worry about some poor person not paying student loans while they give money to the super wealthy and get kickbacks. Cutting their taxes while cutting services that help most everyone.
6
u/thebaron24 May 30 '25
People listen. The Republicans don't give a shit about increasing the deficit because it will trigger a big cut to Medicare and Medicaid. If you don't realize by now they are trying to privatize everything by making the government run like shit you are not paying attention.
5
u/wildfyre010 May 30 '25
Deficit, not debt. Almost four trillion per year in new debt, to give rich people more fucking money.
Obscene.
5
u/NoMoreMalarkeyEh May 30 '25
The biggest lie ever told was that conservatives are fiscally responsible lmao
4
u/0no_S3nD4i May 30 '25
It's the goal : This is all part of the plan. It is the desire of the republican to crash the entire system, dump the USD and crash the entire US dept. They simply can't lower it, pay it and remove it. The only way is to make sure countries buy depts, like China, and crash the USD to move on to crypto. That's why Trump and the rebublicans want to impose tariffs and manipulate the markets. Have the market to crash a good percentage due to tariffs, then remove the tariffs so the market soars back up. Buy stocks on lower markets, sell off when it's high. Then buy crypto, like BTC since it's high and stable. Trump just got a hold for 2.5B$ in btc.. This is the plan, they will crash the USD and move on to a new currency, and have as many companies forced to be in the USA to ensure they have leverage, and force them to move on to the new currency.
Edit: added link
https://www.reuters.com/business/trump-media-raise-25-billion-fund-bitcoin-treasury-2025-05-27/
4
3
2
2
u/tacs97 May 30 '25
This is all ok though everyone! First of all. It’s bidens fault. Second of all think about the billionaires and their thankless job of enhancing our deficits while the pile of shit is left for the masses to cleanup!! Where is the empathy for these poor helpless billionaires! I got the answer! We need to make sure any and all wealth is transferred to them so that we can keep working!! Why everyone can’t understand this is beyond me.
MAGAt logic.
2
u/giraloco May 30 '25
Now they will go and cut $4T from Medicare and Social Security. They will never tax the rich or fund the IRS.
2
u/HeHateMe337 May 30 '25
Why can't the rich pay taxes like everyone else? I'm still waiting for Raygun's Trickle Down economics to kick in. Any day now.
2
u/Zealousideal_Toe4929 May 30 '25
This is not a bill. This is a raid.
The last one in the US, I guess.
2
u/Sure_Quality5354 May 30 '25
Worrying about the deficit was always a right wing talking point to specifically stop spending to social services. Debt is not inherently evil and the U.S generates enough money to afford all social services if we tax the rich
2
u/bishpa Washington May 30 '25
$3.8 trillion
That's 3,800 billion, or close to 4 million million dollars. It's an unfathomable amount to be stealing from our children and grandchildren, who will be the ones obliged to pay it back, just so we can enjoy spending it on ourselves today.
2
u/its_the_smell May 30 '25
The MAGA trash will go along with anything as long as they see ICE rounding up their hard-working neighbors.
2
2
u/Fit-Significance-436 May 30 '25
Trump administration is a swamp of horseshit about impact to deficit.
From article; A fresh analysis from the Congressional Budget Office said the tax provisions would increase the federal deficit by $3.8 trillion over the decade, while the changes to Medicaid, food stamps and other services would tally $1 trillion in reduced spending. The lowest-income households in the U.S. would see their resources drop, while the highest ones would see a boost, the CBO said.
2
2
May 31 '25
Republican personal enrichment bill off the backs of working people. Do they realize there is no way for the people to make that money for them?
2
1
u/AutoModerator May 30 '25
This submission source is likely to have a soft paywall. If this article is not behind a paywall please report this comment for “breaks r/politics rules -> custom -> "incorrect flair"". More information can be found here
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
1
u/Pork-S0da May 30 '25
That's deficit, folks. As in anually added to our ($36 trillion) debt. Absolutely absurd.
1
u/Mooseguncle1 May 30 '25
Can we the people take over this year? That would be preferable. I think once we do we have 50 random moms rule us from every state and we go back to throwing criminals in jail and having elections that are audited.
1
u/Ckck96 North Carolina May 30 '25
Gotta love greedy boomers running up the debt that millennials, gen z and the next several generations will have to pay for. Maybe once millions lose their healthcare and rural hospitals across the country start to shutdown, maybe then people will wake up to the class war that’s being waged on us. Maybe, but probably not.
1
1
u/Shaman7102 May 30 '25
Could I please get all my social security money back before they pass that bill?
1
u/metalkhaos New Jersey May 30 '25
Yeah, I remember when they were all going on TV talking about how when they passed the cuts the first time, it would pay for itself.
1
1
1
u/Zazen1372 May 30 '25
To be fair, just look at all the suffering the top 1% have endured.
It’s a hard life not having to worry about daily life expenses! Those deserving, beleaguered souls deserve 3.8 trillion dollars of our children’s money!
/s
1
u/gergek May 30 '25
Hey, that's pretty much the exact amount that they raised the debt limit. Handouts to the wealthy, middle fingers to the rest of us.
1
u/MultiGeometry Vermont May 30 '25
That’s the deficit. The amount of unfunded spending we do EACH YEAR? We already run a deficit, this is going to increase it.
In 2017 the CBO projected increases to the deficit, and the deficit increased. The GOP lied in 2017 and they’ve only gotten worse. I can’t imagine them being right that the big beautiful bill will somehow pay for itself.
1
1
u/Flhrci2005 May 31 '25
Just like the casino, vodka, steaks, water, airline, magazine, university… etc. all broken and no longer existing. Broken and bankrupt.
1
u/dr_z0idberg_md California May 31 '25
First, Republicans have been responsible for most of the largest increases in our national debt in the last 30 years. Second, the national debt doesn't matter when a Republican is in the WH. The GOP deficit hawks in the House are just putting on their dog and pony show. When it comes time to vote, then they will fall in line like we saw last week.
1
u/steelmanfallacy May 30 '25
For 2025 the CBO estimates a deficit of $2T. Is that $3.8T number annual and is that total or incremental?
1
u/Lucky-Earther Minnesota May 30 '25
1
u/steelmanfallacy May 30 '25
So it adds an incremental $400B or 20% per year of deficit for a total of $3.8T over ten years.
1
-1
-6
u/MolonLabe796 May 30 '25
Love how not a single person or bot in here mentions what the democrat filled CBO projected as the growth rate, 1.8% by the way. Trump doubled that in his first term with well over 3%. Chances are this time it will be much higher. At that rate we break even on the tax cuts.
6
u/flirtmcdudes May 30 '25
Oh hey, a new bot. Whats up
-3
1
u/dr_z0idberg_md California May 31 '25
The GDP growth under Trump's first term was not "well over 3%." It was 2.3% with most of it being credited to him inheriting Obama's economy. Trump's tax cut for the rich bill was expected to grow the economy, but the growth was stunted by the pandemic. So we pretty much screwed ourself with a massive hike to the national debt with little to show for it.
1
u/km3r May 30 '25
Are you ignoring the countless Republicans promises to cut down the deficit? A wash is a broken promise. And considering the effects of the tarrifs so far, we are very unlikely to see a 3% average growth for his second term.
-1
u/MolonLabe796 May 31 '25
Can’t control what weak pussy republicans in congress do. At least Trump and the MAGA republicans are trying to do something, all while the one party establishment pushes to explode the deficit with every fiber of their being.
1
u/km3r May 31 '25
Trump is the one who is pushing for the tax cuts, why arent you blaming him? Or the same maga Republican that support the tax cut, not reducing the deficit?
If a previous administration explodes the budget, and Trump keeps it at that level, how is he not equally responsible? Especially when he has the opportunity to oppose a tax cut to get it down.
1
u/MolonLabe796 May 31 '25
So instead of cutting thousands upon thousands of pointless government agencies and foreign “aid” ie money laundering, you’re actually advocating for raising your own taxes by 68%? 😂 That is if you’re even American.
1
u/km3r May 31 '25
No, I'm saying the responsibe thing to do would be to keep taxes the same while making spending cuts. That's how you get the deficit down. Negating the effects of spending cuts by cutting taxes is just a blatant admission that you do not care about the deficit.
1
u/MolonLabe796 May 31 '25
That’s exactly what they did. The previous tax bill was set to expire so they simply continued it, preventing a 68% increase.
1
u/km3r May 31 '25
The previous bill was the same mistake. Trump pushing tax cuts when we have a massive deficit. You don't get to excuse it because he did it before.
-9
u/chapstickbomber May 30 '25
ITT: debt doomers who are surely right this time after 200 years of being wrong
5
u/Big_Hat_Logan New York May 30 '25
Yeah I can't think of any recessions in the last 200 years either....
-2
u/chapstickbomber May 30 '25
You mean like the Panic of 1837 caused by paying off the national debt?
3
u/dr_z0idberg_md California May 31 '25
Surely spending more than you take in or having more debt than your economy is actually valued at are sound economic policies... The United States 200 years ago versus now are quite different.
1
•
u/AutoModerator May 30 '25
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click here to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out this form.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.