Re: “Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’ Missile Shield Expected To Cost $500 Billion”

On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 13:55:46 -0400, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com>
wrote:

Paul S Person wrote:

On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 18:16:04 -0400, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com>
wrote:
 

Lynn McGuire wrote:

On 5/30/2025 11:32 AM, Paul S Person wrote:

>

>
Many people of gone through the numbers, taking every penny of the rich
will not be even close to fixing the USA debt.
>
The only way to fix the debt problem through taxes is to tax the middle
class to death.  And the uniparty is rightfully scared to do so.

>
Should have said "deficit" there, rather than debt.

Maybe he doesn't consider the deficit to be a problem.

>
In 1993 the Canadian federal government debt was 12.2 percent of GDP.
The net government debt was far worse, as our provinces were far deeper
in debt than your states are allowed to be.
>
The currency was so weak we began to call it the "Zloty".
>
The Liberal government eliminated the debt in five years, and we had
surpluses up to the Wall Street crimes of 2009.

>
Again, "defect".  I really should proofread these.

Actually, I suspect "deficit" was intended.

Then again, the above was from Lynn McGuire, and this is from William
Hyde, so maybe not.

This stuff gets /so/ confusing.

Feel free to advise of any mis-attributions.

This was done with some tax hikes, some spending cuts, many spending
freezes, and a growing economy.  There were protests, of course, there
was anger.  But it happened and the Liberals remained in power for
twelve years.
>
Currently the US federal deficit is about 15% of GDP, but your states
are in much better shape than our provinces were.  And while we couldn't
squeeze much out of defense cuts you can cut tens of billions and it
will just be a pinprick.

I suspect most, if not all, of them are prohibited by their
Constitutions to have a deficit. Washington is, unless something
changed and I didn't notice.

This doesn't mean that they can't take on debt. It just means that
they have to issue bonds and pay them off.

You can beat this without an apocalypse, without firing the people in
charge of your nuclear weapons, without cutting off HIV meds to hundreds
of thousands of poor people, without even taxing the rich a whole lot more.

But where's the fun in that?

And, anyway, the goal is clearly to Make Headlines, not Solve
Problems.

You need time, a growing economy, some fiscal restraint, some tax
increases.  And patience.
>
If you do this, you'll wonder what all the fuss was about.
>
Though certain writers will need to find a different theme.

 
But neither major Party is interested. That sort of thing just isn't
sexy enough.

>
I didn't say you would, only that you can.
>
But an absolute prerequisite for it to happen is that people realize
that it can happen. Rather than spending 100% of their time decrying the
policies of the current parties, commentators should dial that back to
95%, and spend five percent talking about rational actions.  Even if
these are only theoretical.  Who knows, five percent of the population
might agree.

I would say that differently: they should back off their attempts to
predict what the policies will do 100% and focus entirely on the
effects. And make it clear who is responsible for them. Including both
sides in their analysis of responsibility.

Let us never forget the career of E. Scrydgemour, who ran as the
temperance party candidate against Winston Churchill, and lost six times
in succession.  But on the seventh, he won.  That which is declared
impossible in politics can happen.

Never heard of him. That would be for Churchill's seat in Parliament,
right?

Our problems run much deeper than mere economics.

>
Problems tend to be connected.  Reduce one problem's severity and it
will have a good effect on other problems.

My point is that just talking about the economics won't work. The last
decade or two are proof enough of that. The problem is much more
fundamental, and it needs to be identified and addressed.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"