The biggest driver of increasing debt has been tax cuts for the rich. If you really cared about the national debt you would be campaigning hard against the proposed budget.
Since the 1960s, revenue from total taxation as a percent of gdp is unchanged. Not also the difference in tax revenue between Europe and America stems mostly from policies that tax the middle class not the "rich":
The U.S. already taxes the rich—measured by both tax rates and tax revenues—at levels roughly equal to the OECD average. Yes, the other 38 OECD nations collect tax revenues that, on average, exceed the U.S. by 7.5% of GDP (at all levels of government). However, nearly this entire difference results from the other 38 OECD nations hitting their middle class with value-added taxes (VATs) that raise an average of 7.2% of GDP. And while the progressive avatars of Finland, Norway, and Sweden exceed U.S. tax revenues by 16% of GDP, that gap virtually disappears after accounting for the 14.5% of GDP in higher payroll and VAT revenues that broadly hit the Nordic middle class. Europe finances its progressive spending levels on the backs of the middle class, not the wealthy.[37]
This plan should be a must read for people from any spot along the American political spectrum.
"Deep defense cuts. Since the 1980s, the Pentagon budget has fallen from 6% to 3% of GDP—not far above Europe’s target of 2%. Cutting U.S. defense spending to the levels pledged by European members of NATO would save 1% of GDP, or less than one-fifth of the Social Security and Medicare noninterest shortfall by the 2040s and 2050s."
Read the budget. Learn something. None of the partisan mantras solve the problem. The only solution is to trim ss, trim medicare, and raise taxes across the board.
Prison labor, underpaid and abused illegal agricultural workers worldwide, sweatshop workers for Nike, H&M, etc, miners in 3rd world countries, these abuses are incredibly widespread and are basically the basis of our society.
It's a lot more expensive currently to clothe and feed yourself ethically. Basically only upper middle class people and above can afford it.
Everyone else has cheap food and clothes, electronics, etc, more or less due to human suffering.
It's like Y2K. Nothing bad happened, so why did we waste all that money?
People forget the horror show at the beginning of the epidemic of overflowing hospitals in Italy. I think what was happening there very much influenced our thinking about it, we definitely didn't want that happening here (wherever in the world here is for you).
Exactly this. I refuse to let all this happen while I sit back saying, "Well what can I really do?"
I can be vocal. I can inform my elected representatives of my opinions. I can protest. I can defend the rights of those who are being oppressed.
These things have risks, and everyone has to make their own determination as to what risks they are willing to bear. I've decided this is too important to let the risks prevent me from speaking out. That might mean I get arrested, physically harmed, detained, or worse. So be it. I am not going to let my country turn into a dictatorship while I do nothing.
I hear you. I send my representatives messages through their channels, only to occasionally receive a boilerplate response and automatic subscription to their propaganda newsletter. I fully expect that I'll be in a roundup of "dissidents" whenever that circus happens. The fact of the matter is that the people of this country voted for this. It's what they want. I don't know how we can combat that. I speak up and scream into the void, but it ultimately feels futile.
Calls and letters count more than emails and contact forms when it comes to congressional feedback.
> The fact of the matter is that the people of this country voted for this. It's what they want.
It can look like that, but remember some facts. The popular vote split was 49.8% to 48.3%. Almost 90 million eligible voters didn't cast a vote for president. That is higher than either Trump's or Harris' final vote tally. Only ~32% of eligible voters voted for Trump.
Trump likes to call it a landslide but that's just bluster. Quite a lot of his policies perform awful in polls. Public opinion can be moved.
What I see is more classist, which is evidently still ok with people. They don't want to sit next to the poors on the bus, and don't want them living in their neighborhood, and don't want to see them in the supermarket, etc.
I wouldn't expect Gizmodo to write about those things because it's not really their beat, but has the WSJ not covered those subjects? I'm not a subscriber, but they sound like things the WSJ would cover.
reply