In my recent post about "Seven Thoughts to Ruin Your Day," I observed, "No. 6 is our addiction to debt, both public and private. The national debt keeps growing astronomically. Not a single leader in Washington takes this seriously. I guess they think America is going to become the first civilization in history permanently to consume more than it produces. I have my doubts. We need to ask ourselves where and how this is going to end."
Of course we're not going to do anything like that, since, as Paul correctly notes, (1) Trump is too irresponsible (having himself contributed significantly to the problem), and (2) the Democrats could either care less or, worse, understand that debt weakens America, which is exactly what they want.
But to be honest, it's not our political leadership. It's us. The reason neither party is going to do anything about the debt is that neither wants to play the adult to our juvenile culture and gratification-now habits. We need a huge cultural change before we can even think about getting the needed political change. And I have no clue where that cultural change will even get started.
Great post and great program. I have only two quibbles. While I think it's fair to refer to a Hamilton Norm, for Hamilton would have been appalled by our present position on debt and the predicament it puts us in. He did, however, support a permanent federal debt. He was, in my opinion, the most brilliant and most impactful of the Founders, overcoming state resistance to the new constitution, creating a national economy, and championing a view of national power that found legal expression in John Marshall cases. He did, however, believe in permanent federal debt as an instrument of policy.
I don't think it's fair to see Trump as the father of an untouchable, growing federal debt. In the years before Trump became president Republicans got their heads handed to them when they suggested debt reforms. Trump didn't fight the problem, and even refused to see it as a problem, but he didn't lay the third rail. Jim Dueholm
Nikki Haley advocated for entitlement reform and led Biden by around 13 points in the last poll I saw. Trump, who blasted Haley for her position, leads Biden by 2 points.
I agree, though, that Trump isn't the father on an untouchable, growing federal debt. In my post, I think I placed more blame on Obama than on Trump.
Haley does lead Trump in most, though not all, polls against Biden, but I think that's at least in part because she never had a chance of getting the nomination. In 1996 Colin Powell was the only Republican who beat Clinton in the polls, but in declining to run he said his poll numbers would drop precipitously if he became the Republican nominee. I think the same analysis holds for Haley's support for entitlement reform. That position didn't hurt Haley in the polls because she never had a realistic chance of implementing it. She was a cheap protest against both Trump and Biden. Trump's position on entitlement reform is hard to defend, but it isn't what makes the issue intractable. As long as the Democrats demagogue this issue, as Biden did in the State of the Union address, it will remain a third rail, not addressed by either party until the crisis is truly upon us. Jim Dueholm
The Haley-Powell comparison seems inapt. It's not just that Haley, unlike Powell, ran for president for half a year with frequent appearances in debates. It's also that Powell was an unknown quantity in politics. It's not even clear that most of those polled knew he was a Republican.
That's probably why Powell said what he said. But who knows if Powell's assessment was correct? Did he cite any poll or was this just an assumption he made?
As for the third rail, if Trump wins, he could address the issue in a second term, as Clinton and Bush were poised to do, according to Paul Ryan. (Of course, if Trump aspires to be president for life, that's different). But having demagogued the issue, quite unnecessarily, to secure the nomination, he has foreclosed that statesmanlike option.
In order to have a statesmanlike option, some part of him would have to be statesmanlike, so we can forget about that. But I digress. The big question is whether there is a realistic way -- something that isn't politically fatal -- to actually spend less, save more, stop deficits and generally be adult and prudent. I'm eager for any and all suggestions, because this is a huge problem and I'm not seeing a solution. (Except at the micro level, i.e., buy tangible assets like real estate and gold, which will help the individual who has them but won't avert the coming crash, whatever form it may take).
In my recent post about "Seven Thoughts to Ruin Your Day," I observed, "No. 6 is our addiction to debt, both public and private. The national debt keeps growing astronomically. Not a single leader in Washington takes this seriously. I guess they think America is going to become the first civilization in history permanently to consume more than it produces. I have my doubts. We need to ask ourselves where and how this is going to end."
Of course we're not going to do anything like that, since, as Paul correctly notes, (1) Trump is too irresponsible (having himself contributed significantly to the problem), and (2) the Democrats could either care less or, worse, understand that debt weakens America, which is exactly what they want.
But to be honest, it's not our political leadership. It's us. The reason neither party is going to do anything about the debt is that neither wants to play the adult to our juvenile culture and gratification-now habits. We need a huge cultural change before we can even think about getting the needed political change. And I have no clue where that cultural change will even get started.
Great post and great program. I have only two quibbles. While I think it's fair to refer to a Hamilton Norm, for Hamilton would have been appalled by our present position on debt and the predicament it puts us in. He did, however, support a permanent federal debt. He was, in my opinion, the most brilliant and most impactful of the Founders, overcoming state resistance to the new constitution, creating a national economy, and championing a view of national power that found legal expression in John Marshall cases. He did, however, believe in permanent federal debt as an instrument of policy.
I don't think it's fair to see Trump as the father of an untouchable, growing federal debt. In the years before Trump became president Republicans got their heads handed to them when they suggested debt reforms. Trump didn't fight the problem, and even refused to see it as a problem, but he didn't lay the third rail. Jim Dueholm
Nikki Haley advocated for entitlement reform and led Biden by around 13 points in the last poll I saw. Trump, who blasted Haley for her position, leads Biden by 2 points.
I agree, though, that Trump isn't the father on an untouchable, growing federal debt. In my post, I think I placed more blame on Obama than on Trump.
Haley does lead Trump in most, though not all, polls against Biden, but I think that's at least in part because she never had a chance of getting the nomination. In 1996 Colin Powell was the only Republican who beat Clinton in the polls, but in declining to run he said his poll numbers would drop precipitously if he became the Republican nominee. I think the same analysis holds for Haley's support for entitlement reform. That position didn't hurt Haley in the polls because she never had a realistic chance of implementing it. She was a cheap protest against both Trump and Biden. Trump's position on entitlement reform is hard to defend, but it isn't what makes the issue intractable. As long as the Democrats demagogue this issue, as Biden did in the State of the Union address, it will remain a third rail, not addressed by either party until the crisis is truly upon us. Jim Dueholm
The Haley-Powell comparison seems inapt. It's not just that Haley, unlike Powell, ran for president for half a year with frequent appearances in debates. It's also that Powell was an unknown quantity in politics. It's not even clear that most of those polled knew he was a Republican.
That's probably why Powell said what he said. But who knows if Powell's assessment was correct? Did he cite any poll or was this just an assumption he made?
As for the third rail, if Trump wins, he could address the issue in a second term, as Clinton and Bush were poised to do, according to Paul Ryan. (Of course, if Trump aspires to be president for life, that's different). But having demagogued the issue, quite unnecessarily, to secure the nomination, he has foreclosed that statesmanlike option.
In order to have a statesmanlike option, some part of him would have to be statesmanlike, so we can forget about that. But I digress. The big question is whether there is a realistic way -- something that isn't politically fatal -- to actually spend less, save more, stop deficits and generally be adult and prudent. I'm eager for any and all suggestions, because this is a huge problem and I'm not seeing a solution. (Except at the micro level, i.e., buy tangible assets like real estate and gold, which will help the individual who has them but won't avert the coming crash, whatever form it may take).