[dragthor]

- Cancel UN climate payments, use money instead on America water and environmental issues. Sounds good to me. Let China and India clean up their own mess, while we clean up our messes.

- Yes. Too many regulations by unelected bureaucrats. Sounds good to me. I'd rather have one clear and meaningful regulation than two "up for random interpretation."

- Yes. Tax cuts for all working people. Let people decide what to do with their own money (spend, save, donate, etc.). The bigger the government, the smaller the individual.

- Massive immigration changes? Not really. The pamphlet seems to enforce existing laws regarding criminal illegals.

[GVIrish]

> Tax cuts for all working people. Let people decide what to do with their own money (spend, save, donate, etc.). The bigger the government, the smaller the individual.

Tax cuts are all well and good in a vacuum, but how are we realistically going to pay down the national debt when we enact a massive tax cut on top of a tax rate that is already at historically low levels?

Some people say we can cut all of this government bureaucracy to make up for tax cuts but we'd have to take a figurative axe to all of our federal agencies to get to a point where we can afford a massive tax cut and pay down the national debt.

Otherwise we'd have to enact big cuts to Medicare/Medicaid, defense, and Social Security as well, which people seem loathe to stomach.

[leepowers]

> but how are we realistically going to pay down the national debt when we enact a massive tax cut on top of a tax rate that is already at historically low levels?

Here's a hint: we're not going to pay down the debt anytime soon. I would expect the debt to increase by $8-$12 trillion over the next decade if Trump gets all the tax cuts and programs in his agenda.

The electorate hates taxes. At the same time it loves government spending. There is no political will to cut spending in any meaningful way. The last Republican vice president declared that "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" - a line that Trump has echoed.

[ThrustVectoring]

>how are we realistically going to pay down the national debt

We don't want to pay down the national debt. Each treasury note is a promise to provide the holder with real goods and services later, and we need to make those promises to our aging citizenry. We do this in part with the intra-governmental debt that the Social Security Trust Fund holds. Regular citizens also save for retirement, and they hold and demand Treasury bonds as well.

[gozur88]

Yes, we should pay down the national debt. Why would we want to pay interest on outstanding debt when we could lower taxes or increase services instead?

You don't have to buy Treasuries to save for retirement. There are all sorts of bonds, foreign and domestic.

[seanmcdirmid]

If people need to save, someone has to borrow. So where should all that money saved in USD go? The high risk stock market? The reason the US dollar is so powerful in the world is that there is always a safe place to park a large amount of them (the US gov) when you need to use them later. Take that away, and the dollar becomes much less appealing internationally. Treasury rates (what you call interest) are actually negative ATM when inflation is considered (we make money by borrowing it).

We should be spending more wisely, but debt economics is not as simple as it seems.

[gozur88]

The bond market dwarfs the stock market, and it's just as reliable as any inter-generational promise made by the government.

Treasury rates are only effectively negative because the government is printing money to buy treasuries. That's not going to end well.

[seanmcdirmid]

The government is buying treasuries to push down rates, not because they are doing QE at the moment. Now pushing down rates means there is more money to borrow (the gov buys from owners of bonds, they get cash in return), but it doesn't necessarily mean the government is printing money (you can tell by he inflation rate, which is still quite reasonable).

The corporate bond market cannot soak up trillions of dollars in safe investments. In fact, low interest rates can simply result from high demand for treasury bonds because they are a "sure thing."

[ThrustVectoring]

Wait, you want to raise taxes or reduce services now so that we can pay down the debt so that we can lower taxes or increase services later? At near-zero interest rates?

[MichaelBurge]

Medicare and Social Security are funded through their own dedicated payroll tax, not the general income tax. Roosevelt intentionally did it this way to make it impossible to repeal.

My working assumption is that the military is mismanaged, and spends trillions of dollars on wasteful projects. I think you can get a pretty big tax cut by just managing the military better.

[josho]

> I think you can get a pretty big tax cut by just managing the military better.

I find it interesting that in the US people are comfortable discussing improving military efficiency, yet its taboo to discuss reducing the size of the military.

With a concerted effort it would be a major accomplishment to improve military efficiency by 5-10%. Or you could cut the military budget by 40% and still outspend every other nation's military. Yet, I don't recall ever hearing a candidate suggest reducing the military's budget. Hell even after the cold war didn't spending go up after a brief decline?

[totalZero]

You're right. A small percentage of a massive industrial complex is actually a ton of money.

There are some situations where US aircraft will fire half-million-dollar heatseeking missiles at empty sky, just in case enemies fire SAMs. That's an expensive habit.

The military doesn't constrain itself financially unless it's forced to. They care more about the mission and the warfighter, as they should. But the guys in Congress who are tasked with constraining the military are too chicken to endanger their support from active duty, veterans, and their friends and families.

[cobookman]

The US is a superpower because of our military might. A lot of the technological achievements were due to military research. If we reduce our military size to be `reasonable` we loose our status as a super power.

[sangnoir]

> The US is a superpower because of our military might.

IMO, the causality is Economic might --> military might + "soft power" --> superpower (look at how China's trajectory). Prioritising military over economy in peace times seems short-sighted

[gozur88]

Spending on the military peaked during the cold war at about 10% GDP. Right now it's down to about 4%.

[knz]

I take it you missed the last point:

> Restoring National Security Act: Rebuilds our military by ... expanding military investment;

It reminds me of the "plan" to replace the ACA/Obamacare. Sounds great on paper but probably does fuck all to address the real issues.

[MichaelBurge]

I didn't miss it, but here are some things I've heard him say on that issue:

The first method is to control costs on military projects, and audit their finances. I think he'll do fine on this boring executive work, though I don't think better project management alone is going to get a 35% tax cut on the middle-class.

Second, there are foreign members of NATO that are supposed to pay 2% of GDP for a defense pool that are not doing this. He wants to pressure them into paying their share for protection. Since he's mentioned this, supposedly some countries have started paying into it.

Third, he doesn't actually want to go to war. War is pretty expensive, so building up a military to project strength without actually using it could be cheaper if we pull out of all on-going wars.

[serge2k]

> Third, he doesn't actually want to go to war. War is pretty expensive, so building up a military to project strength without actually using it could be cheaper if we pull out of all on-going wars.

But... it's already by far the most well funded and advanced military in the world with a navy that ensures the US can deploy strength anywhere quickly.

[burkaman]

> Let China and India clean up their own mess, while we clean up our messes.

But China and India are on the same planet as us.

[chadgeidel]

And building our stuff without our EPA regs. I'm not sure how they can "clean up their own mess" while basically being an outsourcing arm for all our emissions. It's like we have this magical factory with a really long smokestack. Don't shut down the factory just tell someone else to fix the smoke.

[a2m]

WRONG.

[mywittyname]

Found the Martian.

[ocschwar]

"Cancel UN climate payments, use money instead on America water and environmental issues. Sounds good to me. Let China and India clean up their own mess, while we clean up our messes. -"

The issue with climate change is that the people making the bess are not the same ones who suffer from the mess. So our mess isn't just ours. And their mess isn;t just theirs.

It really should have to be explained to you.

[CatMtKing]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-picks-top-c... Is this what you consider cleaning up our mess?

[dlp211]

> - Yes. Tax cuts for all working people. Let people decide what to do with their own money (spend, save, donate, etc.). The bigger the government, the smaller the individual.

A family of 4 with a median household income of $50k/yr pays close to nothing in federal taxes. Tax cuts don't help the people that need it.

[cobookman]

depends where you are talking about. A tax cut for a family of four taking home 100k/year in LA or SF goes a long way.

[all_usernames]

Tax cuts for all means reducing government resources, which means increasing the power of huge corporations. This is a hostile takeover of the American government.

[jaza]

Let China and India clean up their own mess, while we clean up our messes.

Near-zero chance that Trump will clean up any of America's environmental mess. Near-certain chance that he will significantly add to America's environmental mess.

[orf]

> Cancel UN climate payments, use money instead on America water and environmental issues. Sounds good to me. Let China and India clean up their own mess, while we clean up our messes.

What the hell. How ignorant is that.

[Zpalmtree]

You didn't respond to his point, you just insulted him.

[orf]

He didn't make a point, just an ignorant statement. Which I responded to by pointing out that it was very ignorant.

If you care to make a point worth replying to about 'china and India cleaning up their own messes' (despite the US having the highest CO2 emissions per capita in the world by a huge margin, over 2x that of China's and nearly 10x that of India's, and for a far far far longer time) then be my guest.

[abledon]

If you care to make a point worth replying to about 'china and India cleaning up their own messes' (despite the US having the highest CO2 emissions per capita in the world by a huge margin, over 2x that of China's and nearly 10x that of India's, and for a far far far longer time) then be my guest.

Wait, so you agree with him then, that US has a waaaay bigger mess than china(1/2) and india(1/10), and that the US should clean up its own (biggest) mess first, before the other two?

[orf]

Nobody is going to clean up anything. Trump's a climate septic, hes got another one in line to head the EPA. Hes stopping these payments whilst simultaneously wanting to increase production of domestic "clean coal", natural gas and shale oil.

Your country has historically contributed far more than its fair share of greenhouse gasses, and these small payments (from the richest country in the world) help other countries reduce emissions and show that you recognise that.

But nope. Let's drop all that so we can prop up some failing coal towns for a while longer.