One conservative’s argument for a Harris vote

[crazed_hoosier2]

Oh my expectations are in line with yours, I have no illusions on how things are likely to go either way. Next to no one has the political willpower to get spending under control, even those who would actually like to see progress there.

This is the macro equivalent of somebody who constantly lives beyond their means eventually getting to the point that they have to start liquidating assets to continue their level of consumption.

When people who defend our high spending say “You can’t compare government finance to personal finance” this is what they’re talking about. Governments have the ability to create new money.

Which is true. However, any suggestion that this does not come at a very real cost is utterly untrue.

 

[IUCrazy2]

This is the macro equivalent of somebody who constantly lives beyond their means eventually getting to the point that they have to start liquidating assets to continue their level of consumption.

When people who defend our high spending say “You can’t compare government finance to personal finance” this is what they’re talking about. Governments have the ability to create new money.

Which is true. However, any suggestion that this does not come at a very real cost is utterly untrue.

We saw a glimpse of the cost coming out of COVID.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

We saw a glimpse of the cost coming out of COVID.

Well, deficit projections aren’t as high as the COVID years - which were huge, but temporary.

But they are roughly double the historical Post-WWII average….year after year. Do you hear anybody campaigning on addressing this? I don’t.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Well, deficit projections aren’t as high as the COVID years - which were huge, but temporary.

But they are roughly double the historical Post-WWII average….year after year. Do you hear anybody campaigning on addressing this? I don’t.

One thing our system is bad at is being forward looking. Nobody wants to be the strict parent.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

One thing our system is bad at is being forward looking. Nobody wants to be the strict parent.

It’s because voters as a whole want high rates of spending…and somebody else to pay for it.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

This is the macro equivalent of somebody who constantly lives beyond their means eventually getting to the point that they have to start liquidating assets to continue their level of consumption.

When people who defend our high spending say “You can’t compare government finance to personal finance” this is what they’re talking about. Governments have the ability to create new money.

Which is true. However, any suggestion that this does not come at a very real cost is utterly untrue.

That's not the only difference. Governments can refinance their debt in perpetuity. Individuals can't. Eventually you die, and your debt comes out of your estate. Governments can just keep borrowing.

 

[Univee2]

It’s because voters as a whole want high rates of spending…and somebody else to pay for it.

“You don’t ‘save’ your way to plan; you grow your way to plan.”

 

[snarlcakes]

It’s because voters as a whole want high rates of spending…and somebody else to pay for it.

They’re still paying for it, but don’t realize it.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

That's not the only difference. Governments can refinance their debt in perpetuity. Individuals can't. Eventually you die, and your debt comes out of your estate. Governments can just keep borrowing.

And where does the money come from to pay the refinanced debt?

Ultimately, you’re still left with having to monetize it if you can’t sell the bonds to anybody else — refinancing doesn’t make it rational to revenues.

As it stands, roughly 2/3 of our public debt is held by the Fed. And that is certain to grow as the demand for US Treasuries doesn’t even come close to big enough. The only way the Fed can get the money to buy Treasuries is to create it.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

They’re still paying for it, but don’t realize it.

Yes, precisely. I guess the only safe haven for somebody is to invest in assets that are not dollar denominated. Do you have any ideas?

 

[BradStevens]

Well on some things I would draw the line back 30 years. Take the budget for instance. I would go back to the period where we were last balanced, adjust for inflation, and set that as my FY26 budget (FY25 is already going to be shot because of CRs).

Anybody in government saying they can't cut back in a whole host of areas is flat out lying to you. Doing so would require both parties to let go of some of their commonly held beliefs on government workers and funding though.

And I think that's reasonable. I wonder more about someone using the moniker "conservative" and wanting to eliminate the IRS or the income tax or even the 90-year-old social security system.

 

[snarlcakes]

Yes, precisely. I guess the only safe haven for somebody is to invest in assets that are not dollar denominated. Do you have any ideas?

You can joke about banging my wife, mom, or eating my cat, but leave Bitcoin alone😤

 

[BradStevens]

You can joke about banging my wife, my mom, or eating my cat, but leave Bitcoin alone😤

Pics?

 

[snarlcakes]

Pics?

 

[twenty02]

Well on some things I would draw the line back 30 years. Take the budget for instance. I would go back to the period where we were last balanced, adjust for inflation, and set that as my FY26 budget (FY25 is already going to be shot because of CRs).

Anybody in government saying they can't cut back in a whole host of areas is flat out lying to you. Doing so would require both parties to let go of some of their commonly held beliefs on government workers and funding though.

I'd challenge you to go find those numbers. My guess is that the discretionary budget (the stuff that gets talked about and battled over every year) is pretty close to what it was in 1994 , inflation adjusted.

But the outlays for Medicare and SS have greatly increased with an aging population.

 

[BradStevens]

I'd challenge you to go find those numbers. My guess is that the discretionary budget (the stuff that gets talked about and battled over every year) is pretty close to what it was in 1994 , inflation adjusted.

But the outlays for Medicare and SS have greatly increased with an aging population.

In other words, once again, thanks a lot @UncleMark

 

[Univee2]

And I think that's reasonable. I wonder more about someone using the moniker "conservative" and wanting to eliminate the IRS or the income tax or even the 90-year-old social security system.

According to the IRS, out of every ten Americans audited how many pay more in taxes?

Eleven.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I'd challenge you to go find those numbers. My guess is that the discretionary budget (the stuff that gets talked about and battled over every year) is pretty close to what it was in 1994 , inflation adjusted.

But the outlays for Medicare and SS have greatly increased with an aging population.

That could be the case, but without looking, that is where I would start. If it is all Medicare/SS driving it, then you have to look at increasing tax and/or decreasing benefits.