[saas_co_de]

> benefits to individuals are temporary and will sunset, after which their taxes will be higher

highly unlikely. they will be extended.

> a deficit funded tax cut today means a tax increase tomorrow to pay for principal+interest

no, it means the government creates more money. the deficits are never being paid back, ever. it is mathematically impossible.

[perl4ever]

It's mathematically impossible to pay back a "deficit" in general I think, once the time period in which it occurred is over. But more to the point, the deficit and the debt are important despite the fact that the debt is not expected or desired to be paid off. In order to maintain our way of life, the growth of the debt needs to approximate the growth of the economy in the long run, and be reduced if it overshoots. This is a concept I rather think some conservatives have given lip service to in the past. Are you one of the "fiscally responsible conservatives" I used to read about? The idea that there is a middle ground between hyperinflation and paying the debt off isn't terribly difficult, I would've thought.

[saas_co_de]

I am not a conservative at all, but I can do basic math, and I can tell you with 100% certainty that the federal government's debts will never be paid back.

[perl4ever]

If the US federal government is well run, there is no reason to pay the debt off, as a liquid market for treasuries is beneficial, and the debt can grow forever with the economy...and if the government is poorly run, it would presumably default at some point.

So while I more or less agree it is at least 99.9% certain the debt will not be paid off, I feel like you are making some implicit point with your comment about "basic math" and "100% certainty" that I would not agree with. Why belabour the obvious?

If there was some reason the debt needed to be paid off, I don't see why in principle the US couldn't stop running deficits, as we have oscillated between trillion dollar deficits and much smaller ones.