[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."

[gozur88]

>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).

We've had quite a bit of asset inflation. Sure, the consumer products you buy that were made in China aren't going up, but Zillow says my house is worth more than double what I paid five years ago. You can't tell someone looking for housing there's no inflation.

Did you ever stop and wonder why infrastructure costs so damn much in the US? Why a rail segment going from nowhere to nowhere in California costs seventy billion dollars, or a new bridge ten billion?

>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."

Low interest rates are the result of artificial demand for bonds. If the government would stop monkeying with the bond markets they could "soak up" enough to cover domestic savings. Foreign governments would have to find somewhere else to park their money, but that's not the end of the world.

[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.