In three years under President Trump the nation has gone 3 trillion dollars further into debt. The bean counters expect the debt will increase by at least another trillion in the coming year. By my math each trillion dollars represents a debt of $6,420 per working person in the United States, so 3 trillion equals debt of $20,000 per US worker incurred since Donald Trump took office.
Question: Who is going to pay that debt off?
Rich folks? Maybe, but for 40 years Republicans signature policy has been tax cuts for the wealthy so that seems unlikely.
Retired or working folk? If we increase taxes on retired and working folk the economy will take a big hit - maybe even a recession or depression. Regular folks consumption powers our economy, taking money out of their pockets to pay down the debt will reduce consumption almost dollar for dollar.
Our kids and grand kids?
Any other ideas for someone to pick up the tab?
Background facts: The National debt was 30% of GDP in 1933 when Democrats took over in the midst of the Great Depression. Democrats increased taxes on the wealthy as the debt went up during the Depression and World War II, and maintained the high taxes after the war for nearly 40 years. The National debt was back down to 30% of GDP in 1981 when Republicans took over and started cutting taxes.
Between 1982 and 2016 Republicans cut taxes every time they could push tax cuts past Democrats (Democrats made modest increases when they had a chance). During that period the debt increased by about 14 trillion dollars, a rate of about a trillion every 2.7 years. The Trump tax cuts have more than doubled the rate of debt increase.
The total debt increase since the Reagan tax cuts adds another $80,000 per working person. So since Ronald Reagan started cutting taxes in 1982 and after the Trump tax cuts the debt amounts to $100,000 for each working person in the United States.
Sources:
In 2018, around 155.76 million people were employed in the United States.
ww.statista.com › International › USA
For National Debt inro link to spreadsheets at
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UpmM0yOxhC5sBmnQuOyxfjkTzznMF7TpTK5PJsmmI-Q/edit#gid=2094138634
Thursday, February 6, 2020
Wednesday, February 5, 2020
A Respectful Suggestion for Tom Steyer
Tom, it looks like you got about 1% of the vote in Iowa.
We appreciate your sincerity, and the fact you have worked hard to forward intelligent public policy for decades. But you don't have the personality to be President. These days having a celebrity personality is far more important than actually being able to solve problems - witness the current incumbent.
You could do a lot more long term good for our democracy if you stopped running for President and started spending that money to push some Constitutional amendments to bring our Constitution into the 21st century.
For starters, amending the first amendment to clarify that organizations created by law for business purposes, and granting limited liability protection to the owners, are creatures of law, not people entitled to free speech rights. Maybe with corporate money out of the equation we could make progress on dealing with climate change.
Then perhaps amending the Constitution to clarify that states have the right to regulate deadly weapons within their state, not the Federal government. Then Montana could have all the guns they want, while urban states could protect their populations. Take a huge issue away from those who distract people with talk about "their taking away our guns" while they line their corporate pockets with Federal deficit spending money.
If you think this is a sensible suggestion use the "More" menu at the top of the page to share this post.
We appreciate your sincerity, and the fact you have worked hard to forward intelligent public policy for decades. But you don't have the personality to be President. These days having a celebrity personality is far more important than actually being able to solve problems - witness the current incumbent.
You could do a lot more long term good for our democracy if you stopped running for President and started spending that money to push some Constitutional amendments to bring our Constitution into the 21st century.
For starters, amending the first amendment to clarify that organizations created by law for business purposes, and granting limited liability protection to the owners, are creatures of law, not people entitled to free speech rights. Maybe with corporate money out of the equation we could make progress on dealing with climate change.
Then perhaps amending the Constitution to clarify that states have the right to regulate deadly weapons within their state, not the Federal government. Then Montana could have all the guns they want, while urban states could protect their populations. Take a huge issue away from those who distract people with talk about "their taking away our guns" while they line their corporate pockets with Federal deficit spending money.
If you think this is a sensible suggestion use the "More" menu at the top of the page to share this post.
Sunday, February 2, 2020
Danial 4:17 and the Boy Scout Law
My Dad used to cite the highlighted part of this Bible verse whenever he was irritated about some political leader. The verse states (King James version):
This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones, with the intent that the living may know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.”
I always thought this particular verse was perhaps not applicable to a democracy, but was talking about a world where the most ambitious and ruthless ended up as the King.
Now I am not so sure. As a boy, 60 years ago, I memorized the personality characteristics a Boy Scout was supposed to strive for, the "Scout Law". They were presented to me to be the embodyment of Christian ideals. The law states a scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent."
There are not many politicans who I would say check off all of those boxes, but in my lifetime no President checks off fewer than our current President.
Trustworthy? There are legions of pundits making a living off recording the multiple false statements our President makes on almost daily basis.
Loyal? Our President has a history of using people and discarding them, going back to all the working folks who got stiffed in his casino/hotel bankruptcies through to all the members of his administration who have been attacked for truthful accounts that countradict his false statements seeking to promote himself.
Helpful? He probably has helped some folks occcasionally but it seems all to often he helps himself at the expense of others.
Friendly? He seems friendly with the folks who help him accomplish his goals but has shown himself to be mean and vindictive toward anyone who stands in the way of achieving his personal goals, or bystanders in the line of fire.
Courteous? This is the man who brags on videos about grabbing the crotch of women he did not know whom he thought attractive.
Kind? A man who set up camps to separate mothers an children fleeing violance in Central America and was surprised when people objected.
Obedient? The man who routinely disobeys the law if he sees a possible political advantage to himself.
Cheerful? Maybe he is cheerful sometimes but it is not a word I would associate with him based on his public behavior except when he is villifying other people before his ardent supporters at political rallies.
Thrifty? This one is laughable. This is a profligate spender ran multiple companies into bankruptcy and has singledhandedly added 3 Trillion Dollars to our National Debt with his tax cuts.
Brave? Well, maybe he would have been if that darn bone spur didn't keep him from going to Viet-Nam where he of course would have been a hero and probably a medal of honor winner.
Clean? He might check this box, you'd have to ask folks who know him better.
Reverent? Only when there is some political advantage in temporarily putting on the appearance of reverence. He really seems to be reverent only of himself.
The utlimate irony is folks who consider themselves devout Christians put him in the White House and many still support him. Go figure.
This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones, with the intent that the living may know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.”
I always thought this particular verse was perhaps not applicable to a democracy, but was talking about a world where the most ambitious and ruthless ended up as the King.
Now I am not so sure. As a boy, 60 years ago, I memorized the personality characteristics a Boy Scout was supposed to strive for, the "Scout Law". They were presented to me to be the embodyment of Christian ideals. The law states a scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent."
There are not many politicans who I would say check off all of those boxes, but in my lifetime no President checks off fewer than our current President.
Trustworthy? There are legions of pundits making a living off recording the multiple false statements our President makes on almost daily basis.
Loyal? Our President has a history of using people and discarding them, going back to all the working folks who got stiffed in his casino/hotel bankruptcies through to all the members of his administration who have been attacked for truthful accounts that countradict his false statements seeking to promote himself.
Helpful? He probably has helped some folks occcasionally but it seems all to often he helps himself at the expense of others.
Friendly? He seems friendly with the folks who help him accomplish his goals but has shown himself to be mean and vindictive toward anyone who stands in the way of achieving his personal goals, or bystanders in the line of fire.
Courteous? This is the man who brags on videos about grabbing the crotch of women he did not know whom he thought attractive.
Kind? A man who set up camps to separate mothers an children fleeing violance in Central America and was surprised when people objected.
Obedient? The man who routinely disobeys the law if he sees a possible political advantage to himself.
Cheerful? Maybe he is cheerful sometimes but it is not a word I would associate with him based on his public behavior except when he is villifying other people before his ardent supporters at political rallies.
Thrifty? This one is laughable. This is a profligate spender ran multiple companies into bankruptcy and has singledhandedly added 3 Trillion Dollars to our National Debt with his tax cuts.
Brave? Well, maybe he would have been if that darn bone spur didn't keep him from going to Viet-Nam where he of course would have been a hero and probably a medal of honor winner.
Clean? He might check this box, you'd have to ask folks who know him better.
Reverent? Only when there is some political advantage in temporarily putting on the appearance of reverence. He really seems to be reverent only of himself.
The utlimate irony is folks who consider themselves devout Christians put him in the White House and many still support him. Go figure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)