Political and Economic Theory Thread

[TheMonkey]

Fiscal responsibility is about sustainability over time, not necessarily austerity. Fiscal responsibility means spending discipline (something our nation lacks) and efficiency rather than austerity. In addition to spending wisely, it’s about supporting economic conditions that strengthen the overall fiscal picture.

Although significantly reducing the $39T debt is laudable, the goal should be strongly curtailing or eliminating future deficits. We cannot continue the current growth of interest. Respectfully, printing away debt is not an answer.

Exactly. We should reduce the budget deficit by bringing government revenues closer to expenditures. By reducing the amount of borrowing required, we can demonstrate fiscal discipline to creditors and credit rating agencies and make borrowing easier and cheaper as a result.

 

[Stillwater Townie]

Exactly. We should reduce the budget deficit by bringing government revenues closer to expenditures. By reducing the amount of borrowing required, we can demonstrate fiscal discipline to creditors and credit rating agencies and make borrowing easier and cheaper as a result.

Dream on. We're at the point now where the U. S. Treasury has to borrow money to pay interest on the debt, a bad sign of things to come. As U. S. Treasury bonds become more unappealing to buy to foreign countries; the interest rate will have to keep rising until we're plunged into a depression with inflation. Interest rate and unemployment rate could both be at around 20%.

Dream on also with auditing the Dept. of Defense or War to uncover million$ of waste. I don't think Musk was allowed in the Pentagon.

 

[steross]

Fiscal responsibility is about sustainability over time, not necessarily austerity. Fiscal responsibility means spending discipline (something our nation lacks) and efficiency rather than austerity.

If fiscal responsibility means spending discipline, and austerity means "policies that aim to reduce government budget deficits through spending cuts, tax increases, or a combination of both" are you differentiating by saying that you don't want the tax increases that can be part of austerity? Do you disagree with that definition of austerity? Because, I can't see how it is any different unless "spending discipline" does not mean "spending cuts."

 

[JTOSU]

If fiscal responsibility means spending discipline, and austerity means "policies that aim to reduce government budget deficits through spending cuts, tax increases, or a combination of both" are you differentiating by saying that you don't want the tax increases that can be part of austerity? Do you disagree with that definition of austerity? Because, I can't see how it is any different unless "spending discipline" does not mean "spending cuts."

Fiscal responsibility simply means managing government finances in a sustainable way over time (keeping debt manageable relative to economic growth). Yes, spending cuts and revenue increases (closing loopholes) are a part of this. But we also need policies that grow the economy (which increase tax revenues naturally). Fiscal responsibility is about managing debt relative to economic growth, not just cutting spending. Policies that support growth can improve government finances more effectively than austerity, especially during weaker economic periods. Not arguing that austerity could be a tool, but certainly not a requirement.

* Yes, I am certainly against tax increases that just increase the tax burden on the small population that already overwhelming fund the government (unless it is eliminating tax loopholes like carried interest)
* Suggesting we can print away debt is not a sustainable idea. Printing money doesn't make debt disappear, it just changes how it is paid. It further weakens the currency, likely drives additional inflation, and creates broader economic instability.
* Having a $1T surplus would be phenomenal, but that does not need to be the goal -- we need to stop spiraling debt growth

 

[steross]

Fiscal responsibility simply means managing government finances in a sustainable way over time (keeping debt manageable relative to economic growth). Yes, spending cuts and revenue increases (closing loopholes) are a part of this. But we also need policies that grow the economy (which increase tax revenues naturally). Fiscal responsibility is about managing debt relative to economic growth, not just cutting spending. Policies that support growth can improve government finances more effectively than austerity, especially during weaker economic periods. Not arguing that austerity could be a tool, but certainly not a requirement.

* Yes, I am certainly against tax increases that just increase the tax burden on the small population that already overwhelming fund the government (unless it is eliminating tax loopholes like carried interest)
* Suggesting we can print away debt is not a sustainable idea. Printing money doesn't make debt disappear, it just changes how it is paid. It further weakens the currency, likely drives additional inflation, and creates broader economic instability.
* Having a $1T surplus would be phenomenal, but that does not need to be the goal -- we need to stop spiraling debt growth

The differentiation you are making then is that austerity means the cuts are not sustainable and are done with no consideration of growth?

TBH, I have always considered spending cuts/responsibility and austerity to mean essentially the same thing. Sort of like pro-life and anti-abortion or trader and speculator. Basically the same but the nuance is in if you want the thing to sound good or not.

 

[OrangeFan69]

Dream on. We're at the point now where the U. S. Treasury has to borrow money to pay interest on the debt, a bad sign of things to come. As U. S. Treasury bonds become more unappealing to buy to foreign countries; the interest rate will have to keep rising until we're plunged into a depression with inflation. Interest rate and unemployment rate could both be at around 20%.

Dream on also with auditing the Dept. of Defense or War to uncover million$ of waste. I don't think Musk was allowed in the Pentagon.

I mean, we can just say, naaaah on the debt and declare war against anyone who throws a fit about it.

What kind of dumbass would lend us money?

 

[Bowers3]

I mean, we can just say, naaaah on the debt and declare war against anyone who throws a fit about it.

What kind of dumbass would lend us money?

Most of the debt is intergovernmental or owned by the American public. So there’s your answer.

 

[steross]

Most of the debt is intergovernmental or owned by the American public. So there’s your answer.

Ya kinda have an obligation to help out your crazy grandma, even if she blows some of her money at the casino. But someone else’s grandmother?

 

[GratefulPoke]

If fiscal responsibility means spending discipline, and austerity means "policies that aim to reduce government budget deficits through spending cuts, tax increases, or a combination of both" are you differentiating by saying that you don't want the tax increases that can be part of austerity? Do you disagree with that definition of austerity? Because, I can't see how it is any different unless "spending discipline" does not mean "spending cuts."

You already know the answer to this question I think.

Among other things, one of the effects austerity measures have is a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. This would massively deepen the ongoing issues that we have with wealth disparity, not improve them.

It is an interesting phenomenon when people at the very top end of the net worth pyramid are getting all of their needs met and much much more, are still not satisfied with that and want an even larger portion of the pie. They want even less of an investment in their community.

 

[JTOSU]

You already know the answer to this question I think.

Among other things, one of the effects austerity measures have is a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. This would massively deepen the ongoing issues that we have with wealth disparity, not improve them.

It is an interesting phenomenon when people at the very top end of the net worth pyramid are getting all of their needs met and much much more, are still not satisfied with that and want an even larger portion of the pie. They want even less of an investment in their community.

I understand your concern about inequality, and I agree that policy should avoid disproportionately impact any income group. That said, I think it’s a bit misleading to describe austerity as a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. A transfer implies money is actually moving from one group to another, and that’s not really what’s happening when government spending is reduced—benefits or services may be scaled back, but that’s different from wealth being shifted upward.


As I stated previously, austerity is just one approach to fiscal responsibility, and usually refers to more aggressive or rapid spending cuts. Fiscal responsibility itself is really about sustainability—managing debt relative to economic growth. That can include spending discipline, but also policies that support growth and improve efficiency.


My concern is that framing this as “cuts = helping the rich” oversimplifies a much more complex set of tradeoffs. The real question is how to manage government finances in a way that supports long-term growth while being thoughtful about how different groups are affected.

Final thought to your last sentence: Continually adding to a humongous debt is not investing in our community. In it a short-sided approach that is stealing from future generations.