It has been detailed time and time again.
Yes, the downfall of our economy due to the national debt has been detailed many times, starting about 35 years ago, when Ronald Reagan sharply increased the debt. And those economists have been right about the debt exactly zero times. Inflation? No. High interest rates? Of course not. Interest becoming unsustainable? Nope. It's a losing argument, unsupported by the evidence, and based on faulty economic theory.
according to the CBO that you guys love to quote so much as long as it agrees with you I think by like 2030 or so
social spending and debt interest will consume the entire budget. IE all the tax money that the government takes in
will be consumed by those items.
I don't like to quote the CBO. They are comprised of the same type of mainstream economists that have been getting it wrong for the past four decades. They can make reasonable short-term calculations, but when they do crazy stuff like project ever-increasing surpluses (Clinton years) without a trade surplus, they are clearly following bad formulas.
that means all the other outstanding items will need to be paid for by more debt.
the US government is like the person that lives on Credit cards and never pays anything off and then
can't afford what they charge.
the US government has a fiduciary duty to be responsible with the budget and they are not being responsible.
every dollar they borrow means that the taxpayer has to pay that with interest.
currently every person in the US owes the federal government 41k dollars.
That statement demonstrates a total lack of understanding of government finance.
The U.S. government has a duty to run the country to the best of its ability. The economy, while a big factor, is only one factor. It is more important (
and better for the economy) to put the unemployed to work than it is to make the stock market go up. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive, but mainstream economic theory ridiculously states that a certain amount of unemployment is necessary to keep prices down, and we all know where the government's emphasis has been on that - prices.
sanders plan isn't going to do what that hack of an economist says.
I agree that his numbers are pretty rosy. But I also think that Sanders' plan is fundamentally sound, and would benefit the economy more than being frugal would. Who can argue with increased infrastructure spending, if he can get it through? Government spending boosts economies. Always has, always will.
PS I never made those claims. you are either quoting someone else or misquoting me.
Here's what you said about it being paid by taxation:
no government spending pulls from the economy.
as people and business have to pay for all of that spending through usually increased
taxes and good ol Bernie is going to slam people with taxes that is for sure.
...and here's what you said about deficit spending:
18 trillion dollars in new spending with only 7 trillion in tax income.
I don't see how an 11 trillion dollar deficit is outweigh the costs.
Anyway, I don't really care to make a case of that, I'm just pointing out your inconsistency in your apparent rush to say something negative about Sanders.
If Bernie is listening to his economic advisers, he's going to finance his plans through deficit spending more than tax increases. I don't care what he's saying now. Voters are too stupid and reactionary to hear certain things, and he would be crazy to say any of those things until he is safely in the White House.