Fixed that for you.
Printable View
Well, that's a terrible idea.
Generally agree.
Agree.
Generally agree, although I have no belief that Trump will actually drive any meaningful spending cuts. The problem with cutting spending is that the majority of discretionary spending goes to (1) Social Security, (2) Medicare, and (3) Military. I don't see anyone driving the level of changes needed to any of those areas to drive material cost reduction, particularly not a populist like Trump. Populism 101 = spend, spend, spend.
The "major" cuts need to come out of defense.
On SS, in theory I like the idea of a "donut" on the payroll tax. You know, a hole in the middle where the payroll tax doesn't apply from like $125k to $250k then kicks back in. But I don't trust the government to stop there and know they'd eventually apply the payroll tax to 100% of W-2 income.
Are you not worried about the size of the publically held debt relative to GDP, and how that could threaten not only prosperity but also hamstring the government's ability to do anything to mitigate the next recession or fight a war (the two ways that historically are the primary reason for debt-to-GDP increases)? While I am not in the camp that worries about government borrowing or wants a balanced budget, I do subscribe to Greg Mankiw's concerns about the latter issue. It seems important to always have room, when times are good, to increase that ratio to fight a war or help an economy recover from a recession.