this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2024
159 points (93.0% liked)

News

23067 readers
3835 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

No one is likely to be happy with the projected higher deficits laid out in a new analysis of Kamala Harris’ and Donald Trump’s economic plans.

The analysis released Monday by the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget suggests a Harris presidency could increase the national debt over 10 years by $3.5 trillion. That’s even though the vice president’s campaign insists her proposed investments in the middle class and housing would be fully offset by higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy. Her campaign policy guide states that Harris is “committed to fiscal responsibility — making investments that will support our economy, while paying for them and reducing the deficit at the same time.”

The same analysis says former President Trump’s ideas could heap another $7.5 trillion onto the debt and possibly as much as $15.2 trillion. That’s even though he suggests growth would be so strong under his watch that no one would need to worry about deficits.

top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 5 hours ago

Could and would have to dramatically different meaning. Media makes the sound on par.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 35 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

New analysis suggests national debt could increase under Harris,

Oh no.

My life won't change.

but it would surge under Trump

OH NO!!!

My life won't change.

Guess my vote will be based on things like which one of them says they're going to be a dictator who will deport millions of people he calls vermin.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 4 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

You have nothing to worry about if you're not vermin. Have you checked recently?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 25 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not vermin yet, but I'm Jewish, my daughter is Jewish and queer and even my white, Christian wife is in trouble because she's a librarian. So basically we're all going to be the vermin sooner or later.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 7 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Oof, that mix is like almost asking for it. You should arm yourself. 😂

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 9 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

I've armed myself with dual citizenship to the UK, which is where we'll be off to some time between November and January, depending on the outcome of the election.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 4 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Ah, not bad. Probably better than Canada in some regards.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

I technically qualify for German citizenship, but it will be a big bureaucratic hurdle and one I would wait until I got to the UK to tackle.

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Everything is a big bureaucratic hurdle in Germany. Hope you make it across to Europe though, it's much calmer if not completely chill over here.

Und außerdem, wie ist mit deinen Deutschsprachkenntnissen?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

Und außerdem, wie ist mit deinen Deutschsprachkenntnissen?

I had to use Google Translate, if that tells you anything. So that would be another hurdle on top of the bureaucratic ones.

Here's the situation: my German grandfather married my English Grandmother in 1929 and emigrated to the UK the same year. My father was born in 1931. My grandfather did not officially renounce his German citizenship and become a British subject until 1936.

This would, in theory, make my father a German citizen (he would hate that so much) and my brother and I too.

Here is the really big problem in terms of bureaucracy: my grandfather was Jewish. He was officially listed as stateless on his naturalization papers because Germany no longer recognized him as a citizen for obvious reasons.

So yeah, if I fought hard for it, and I may one day, I could get German (and thus EU) citizenship. But it will take a lot of work.

That said, we fought hard for many years for ownership of an apartment building owned by my great-grandmother and seized by the Nazis that was in the former East Berlin. In 1989, we started lawyering up and I don't think it all got resolved for about 10 years. Then we had to sell it for a paltry amount of money because renovating it to comply with modern regulations would have been too expensive and there were price controls at the time. But we fought and won. Maybe I should do it again.

[–] Sconrad122@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

It's maybe worth pointing out that the analysis covers 10 years and appears to account for $0 in GDP growth (and corresponding tax base growth) dependent on those policies. If I'm reading this correctly (big if to be fair): Assuming the government continues to capture 17.5% of US GDP, Harris' policies would need to generate roughly 4% GDP growth per year (no small feat, granted) to be net zero relative to absolute debt levels and less than that to be net zero relative to debt as a percentage of GDP. Government expenditure is not like consumer spending because almost every dollar it spends looks less like consumption and more like an investment, and leveraging investments is actually a valid strategy, especially when you have the economic momentum/inertia of a nation state to balance the risks involved with debt, and that is before you even get into fiscal monetary policy

[–] Letme@lemmy.world 5 points 6 hours ago

It is a wealth transfer, from the middle class to the wealthy

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 39 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

The last time a President ran a balanced budget was Clinton. He did so with the support of the House, by increasing taxes on the wealthy, energy consumption, and Social Security.

The only chance Harris would have at running a balanced budget would be if Democrats obtain control of the House.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

We don't need a balanced budget. The government is not a business.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 8 points 8 hours ago

Foreign ownership of US debt is risky, and could lead to instability of the US Dollar.

As of April 2024, the five countries owning the most US debt are Japan ($1.1 trillion), China ($749.0 billion), the United Kingdom ($690.2 billion), Luxembourg ($373.5 billion), and Canada ($328.7 billion).

https://usafacts.org/articles/which-countries-own-the-most-us-debt/

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 15 points 9 hours ago

Bluntly, neither of them are willing to do the thing necessary to balance the budget, or decrease the national debt, which is raise taxes back to the level they were at before Nixon took office. There's not a quick and easy solution to any of this, but the top marginal tax rates are ridiculously low, and we've made is easy and cheap to outsource production.

When you're already spending less than the minimum needed to keep a country running effectively, you can't simply cut your way out of debt; you need to increase revenues, and that means taxation. The smartest taxes are progressive; they're taxes on wealth and on income, taxes that affect the poor and the rich proportionately, which is to say progressively. Flat taxes, sales taxes, etc., are inherently regressive, affecting the poor disproportionately, and are thus less effective at increasing tax revenues.

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 27 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

“Could” doing some heavy “bOtH SidES!” lifting in that headline.

[–] OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world 10 points 9 hours ago

Yeah that headline is all sorts of manipulative. Are they counting on people stopping reading at the first comma?