I see a lot argument By reducing the government’s wasted government spending, the government’s work to save at $ 1 trillion. In fact, this will not be able to release it in a scenario where Doge achieves $ 1 trillion.
Of course, the government can send checks to the public if desired. But it is not because there is “money” in the general definition of this term. Because it can borrow money. Assume the following data:
Federal expenditure = $ 6.2
Federal income = $ 4.4
Federal borrowing (budget deficit) = $ 1.8 trillion
If Doge reduces expenditures by reducing $ 1 trillion and reducing the total amount to $ 5.2 trillion, the budget deficit will drop to $ 800 billion. But it does not mean that the government has a cash of $ 1 trillion, which can be paid to whatever you want, but it will mean that the federal government borrowed $ 1 trillion than before.
The federal government was able to distribute $ 1 trillion to the public by borrowing $ 1.8 trillion as it borrowed before the Doge saved. But in this case, they just replaced different forms of federal spending in different forms, creating a new UBI spending program. The total government spending is $ 6.2 trillion. What will it be fulfilled?
I recently saw Elon Musk’s passionate speech to Trump’s cabinet. It is impossible:
Elon Musk aims for national debt and warns about bankruptcy.
It may be a bit extreme, but he is right that the budget deficit is a big problem. For this reason, it is meaningless to return the savings to the public because the deficit problem can grow at any time. Of course, the fact that something is illogical no longer affects. Today America:
Trump, MUSK Float $ 5,000 ‘Doge Dividend’ check. Experts say:
Again, there is no money to return to the public. Federal cookie jars are empty.
Okay, what is the objection to my post? How can someone defend the proposal to refund the $ 1 trillion to the public? There are several components in the claim.
1. First, the budget deficit is not a real problem and claims that there is no reason to reduce the current deficit of $ 1 trillion. You can quote a kind of MMT model. Obviously I think it’s wrong, but let’s take this assumption now.
Second. Second, it should be argued that it would be better to reduce the amount of expenditures for the current program by $ 1 trillion and to increase the spending on the “transition to the public”.
In fact, the decrease in $ 1 trillion for federal spending will be almost entirely in a decrease in various qualification programs such as social security, Medicare and Medicaid. This is because GOP does not want to cut defenses and interest payments are more obligations to contract rather than cut. The remaining programs are relatively small and will not be cut at least in aggregation. Some will be cut and some will increase and some will increase (some border security).
In order to understand this kind of plan, it should be argued that it is better to provide about $ 5000 checks to all adults rather than paying the same amount to sub -sets of adult population through various retirement, medical and welfare programs.
Please see the bizarre characteristics of this proposal. In order to defend a $ 1 trillion refund to the public in Doge savings, it is necessary to purchase a controversial theory, not one controversial theory. Also, this theory came The other side of the political spectrum. The theory that a huge defect is not important is the left idea of MMTER. The theory that programs such as social security and Medicare are bad are related to the program on the right.
I met many people with one of these two views. But I do not remember meeting a person who has both views. Nevertheless, if you do not prefer to refund this so -called “money” to the public, we must maintain both views at the same time.
I often find out that people are having a hard time thinking about both topics at the same time. One topic is the size of the budget deficit. Another topic is the government’s appropriate role. I will explain the following example: Suppose someone has argued that it would be better to replace $ 1 trillion in federal spending on a variety of programs. In the above post, this change can be considered undesirable based on what I said. It is not necessarily. The UBI program is more likely to be superior to the current government of money. But I also have a better solution Do not borrow money at first.
Suppose my wife just went to the bank and said he had borrowed $ 1.8 million. Then she asked what to do with money. Should I buy stocks, bonds, bitcoins, and real estate? I will not answer this question in consideration of the $ 1.8 million possible use. Did I ask why she decided to rent $ 1.8 million?
Yes, the UBI program may be good. But who will pay it? Reducing government spending to $ 1 trillion does not free the money of the UBI program and does not reduce national debt. The rate of increasing national debt is slow. We are deeply into the hole, so even painful sacrifices will rarely provide immediate benefits. The fact that policymakers own “the vision of sugar plum” show how deeper our politics is.
(0 Comments)
