Rip, mi gop

[Scottathew]

And they cant be kicked out soon enough. I used to be a moderate but after seeing ten years of complete GOP control in Michigan it's a big fat NO from me.

I'm the same way. Back in the early 00's I was young, religious, and a conservative Republican.

However, after I graduated college and got into the real world I started having a more diverse group of friends and coworkers. I had gay and Muslim friends. I started see more of what was out in the world and I realized that I had been groomed by certain key people [[friends, politicians, church) to have hate and fear towards many minority groups.

In the aftermath of our decisions in Iraq that resulted in tens if not hundreds of thousands of dead, innocent Iraqis, it was one political party that was trying to tell me that it was OK. I even had "Christian" friends try to justify our invasion of Iraq even with the knowledge we have today that there were no WMD's.

"Fiscal conservatism" of the Republicans is a joke, as we have watched the annual deficits rise while the Republicans controlled EVERYTHING for the first two years of the Trump era.

My experience with the intertwining of the Christian faith and the Republican party has sent me running away from both.

[Bigdd]

as we have watched the annual deficits rise while the Republicans controlled EVERYTHING for the first two years of the Trump era.

You DO realize that like 76% of the federal budget is Social Security and entitlements right?

Now try to guess which party likes to promise to give away hundreds of trillions of dollars that it doesn't have, in exchange for votes for itself? [[I.E. treason)


How on earth will we pay for ANY of that? The only shred of hope we have is to shift the economy into high gear, and shove the gas pedal flat to the floor,.. and hope we can add enough people to the tax roles, and remove enough people from the welfare roles that we can the shift the date when we become Venezuela as far into the future as possible.

Shutting down energy, putting unnecessary restrictions on business and raising taxes on business so they are forced to leave the country to compete doesn't work.

[Canadian Visitor]

Now try to guess which party likes to promise to give away hundreds of trillions of dollars that it doesn't have, in exchange for votes for itself? [[I.E. treason)

You do realize the above is hyperbole, nonsense and partisan vitriol right?

The entire annual US Federal budget is a bit over 4.7 Trillion. No one is promising hundreds of trillions of dollars for anything.

https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-feder...akdown-3305789

You are welcome to have a political preference. You are welcome to prefer greater fiscal prudence [[hopefully from both major parties).

You are not welcome to make stuff up.

Go read the facts. Then publish those, with citations and links, and then render an informed opinion.

***

PS, big spending may or may not be wise [[how big, and on what?) but it is not treasonous. If deficits are treasonous then I would suppose you would favour charging every Republican president for the last 1/2 century w/treason?

***

Also, there have been 2 'entitlement' expansions of note since the year 2000.

1) Medicare Part D - Drugs - Proposed and Signed by Republican President Bush

2) Medicaid Expansion - Obama

Which do you suppose was the more expensive?

Ding Ding, you win the prize if you said the Republican expansion, which will cost a bit over 100B this year; while Medicaid expansion runs in the 65B range.

https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-b...and-financing/

Imagine how much more proud of yourself you'd be if you knew what you were talking about!

*****

How on earth will we pay for ANY of that? The only shred of hope we have is to shift the economy into high gear, and shove the gas pedal flat to the floor,.. and hope we can add enough people to the tax roles, and remove enough people from the welfare roles that we can the shift the date when we become Venezuela as far into the future as possible.

The US has a relatively meagre welfare state.

But the highest uptake of Federal welfare programs is in Republican jurisdictions, where poverty is highest.

https://www.lexingtonlaw.com/blog/fi...tatistics.html


If you wanted to examine how the 'discretionary' part of the Federal budget is spent......

Once you include the OCO fund, then military spending is $989 billion. It's spread out among different agencies and budget categories, so you must add it all together. It includes:

• Defense Department base budget: $576 billion.
• DoD Overseas Contingency Operations: $174 billion.
• Departments that support defense: $212.9 billion. They include the Department of Veterans Affairs, State Department, Homeland Security, FBI and Cybersecurity, and the National Nuclear Security Administration.
• Emergency funding for support departments: $26.1 billion.

From here: https://www.thebalance.com/current-u...ending-3305763

***

If you want to fix the US deficit the answer is both reductions in military spending [[just cut the overseas bit to zero)

Then impose a national, broad sales tax at 5% [[yes, I know that requires a constitutional amendment)

But it would raise 270B per year.

https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/2016/52285

Also required is raising the retirement age to 68 or higher.

And raising the minimum age to receive non-disability based benefits to 65 or higher.

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/raising-e...getand-economy

Canada needs to do that to, even though our pension system is fully funded. It would allow more generous benefits.

[Richard]

You do realize the above is hyperbole, nonsense and partisan vitriol right?

The entire annual US Federal budget is a bit over 4.7 Trillion. No one is promising hundreds of trillions of dollars for anything.

https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-feder...akdown-3305789

You are welcome to have a political preference. You are welcome to prefer greater fiscal prudence [[hopefully from both major parties).

You are not welcome to make stuff up.

Go read the facts. Then publish those, with citations and links, and then render an informed opinion.

***

PS, big spending may or may not be wise [[how big, and on what?) but it is not treasonous. If deficits are treasonous then I would suppose you would favour charging every Republican president for the last 1/2 century w/treason?

***

Also, there have been 2 'entitlement' expansions of note since the year 2000.

1) Medicare Part D - Drugs - Proposed and Signed by Republican President Bush

2) Medicaid Expansion - Obama

Which do you suppose was the more expensive?

Ding Ding, you win the prize if you said the Republican expansion, which will cost a bit over 100B this year; while Medicaid expansion runs in the 65B range.

https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-b...and-financing/

Imagine how much more proud of yourself you'd be if you knew what you were talking about!

*****


The US has a relatively meagre welfare state.

But the highest uptake of Federal welfare programs is in Republican jurisdictions, where poverty is highest.

https://www.lexingtonlaw.com/blog/fi...tatistics.html


If you wanted to examine how the 'discretionary' part of the Federal budget is spent......

Once you include the OCO fund, then military spending is $989 billion. It's spread out among different agencies and budget categories, so you must add it all together. It includes:

• Defense Department base budget: $576 billion.
• DoD Overseas Contingency Operations: $174 billion.
• Departments that support defense: $212.9 billion. They include the Department of Veterans Affairs, State Department, Homeland Security, FBI and Cybersecurity, and the National Nuclear Security Administration.
• Emergency funding for support departments: $26.1 billion.

From here: https://www.thebalance.com/current-u...ending-3305763

***

If you want to fix the US deficit the answer is both reductions in military spending [[just cut the overseas bit to zero)

Then impose a national, broad sales tax at 5% [[yes, I know that requires a constitutional amendment)

But it would raise 270B per year.

https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/2016/52285

Also required is raising the retirement age to 68 or higher.

And raising the minimum age to receive non-disability based benefits to 65 or higher.

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/raising-e...getand-economy

Canada needs to do that to, even though our pension system is fully funded. It would allow more generous benefits.

On the military spending aspect and setting aside the keeping the fight thousands of miles from our soil and where it poses the greatest threat,our military is considered a deterrent for hundreds of millions across the world,that comes at a price.

On the flip side how come Russia never took Canada during the Cold War?

It would have been the quickest and most cost effective way to place a direct threat on the US border.

Even now how long do you think Canada would last without the deterrent to the south of her,or even Mexico for that matter.

Korea or even ISIS could roll through either country if there was no intervention or other deterrents.

We create chaos in the world but imagine what would happen if it was not a semi controlled chaos and the billions of dollars that other countries add to thier coffers by selling thier military hardware.

It is kinda hypocritical to say the US should keep its military within its own borders while on the same accord collecting profits on both sides of the chaos.

The Republican Governor of Florida is getting ready to sign off on allowing Canadian pharmaceuticals into the state in order to bring healthcare costs down.

Maybe we should remind him that it is not a Republican mantra and really why should we be pumping billions into the Canadian system anyways.

You keep telling/chastising people how flawed thier thinking is according to your train of thought and coming up with all of these brilliant idieas to make America great again,that do not even work in your own country.

[Canadian Visitor]

On the military spending aspect and setting aside the keeping the fight thousands of miles from our soil and where it poses the greatest threat,our military is considered a deterrent for hundreds of millions across the world,that comes at a price.

On the flip side how come Russia never took Canada during the Cold War?

It would have been the quickest and most cost effective way to place a direct threat on the US border.

Even now how long do you think Canada would last without the deterrent to the south of her,or even Mexico for that matter.

Korea or even ISIS could roll through either country if there was no intervention or other deterrents.

We create chaos in the world but imagine what would happen if it was not a semi controlled chaos and the billions of dollars that other countries add to thier coffers by selling thier military hardware.

It is kinda hypocritical to say the US should keep its military within its own borders while on the same accord collecting profits on both sides of the chaos.

The Republican Governor of Florida is getting ready to sign off on allowing Canadian pharmaceuticals into the state in order to bring healthcare costs down.

Maybe we should remind him that it is not a Republican mantra and really why should we be pumping billions into the Canadian system anyways.

You keep telling/chastising people how flawed thier thinking is according to your train of thought and coming up with all of these brilliant idieas to make America great again,that do not even work in your own country.

All that hot air in order to speak about something that I didn't raise as an issue.

There are ZERO US troop stationed in Canada other than a few equal number exchanges under NORAD.

Yes, the US deters Russia, with its Domestic forces, not its overseas deployment in Syria, or Iraq or North Korea etc. etc.

Those do not benefit Canada's situation at all.

PS, you do realize what a sphere is right? ie. the shape of the planet.

The only direct route from Russia to Canada is through Alaska.

Yes, in theory, over the top is possible. But due to arctic ice conditions, not all that practical.

[Richard]

All that hot air in order to speak about something that I didn't raise as an issue.

There are ZERO US troop stationed in Canada other than a few equal number exchanges under NORAD.

Yes, the US deters Russia, with its Domestic forces, not its overseas deployment in Syria, or Iraq or North Korea etc. etc.

Those do not benefit Canada's situation at all.

PS, you do realize what a sphere is right? ie. the shape of the planet.

The only direct route from Russia to Canada is through Alaska.

Yes, in theory, over the top is possible. But due to arctic ice conditions, not all that practical.

Go back and re-read what you posted,even more so the part where we would have a savings by reducing the military budget and having a zero over seas budget.

Then come back and post about hot air and that you did not raise the issiue.

In relation to your sphere logic,they have these new fangled flying machines that people can jump out of and land pretty much wherever they want,no need to march across a frozen wasteland like 100 years ago.

They could land alongside of most of the people and not even be noticed with everybody buried in thier cell phones.

The rest about the debt and healthcare is easy to solve,the government just takes all of the private retirement funds,anybody that retired at 45 with a pension goes back to work at a state job until 70,the government can build apartment blocks where everybody lives for free or in trade for the 40 hour work week,government provides healthcare and retirees live in the houseing blocks with a small monthly stipend.

Everybody else just works to contribute to the cause and everybody is equally the same.

With the gerrymandering aspect in the past highly populated city centers were blue while the burbs were red,with the movement of the city folk to the burbs is that not going to change the demographics in itself to where parties are going to want to change or tweak the districts?

[Bigdd]

The entire annual US Federal budget is a bit over 4.7 Trillion. No one is promising hundreds of trillions of dollars for anything.

I didn't say "Per year". If we continue to shell out 3 Trillion a year for the next 50 or 100 years,... that's how much? Hundreds of trillions right? Money we don't have and can't possibly ever get.


What I said was "Now try to guess which party likes to promise to give away hundreds of trillions of dollars that it doesn't have, in exchange for votes for itself?"

Perhaps you missed that part?

And that's just the programs that are already in effect. What about the things that socialist politicians propose and say they'll push for if elected? Stuff like free college for all, Medicare for all, guaranteed minimum wages, etc. Just the Medicare for all would be more than our annual budget [[Currently 15% of Americans are on Medicare, yet it consumes 17.5% of our budget,.. and that's climbing by 1% a year. AND THAT'S with it being heavily subsidized by other insurance companies at the doctor's offices. Go in for a procedure and what you pay is based on who your coverage is though. Medicare pays out at the very low end of the spectrum [[so much so that many doctors won't accept it),.. so you get your kids tonsils out and it's $8,000 if you have Blue Cross,.. but only $1,900 if you pay cash. But if we go to medicare for all,.. it won't just cost $112% of our current total annual budget,.. but rather, it could easily double or more to something like 250%. So the Bernie Sander's and some other candidates for 2020,.. [[as well as AOC etc) are proposing adding what?? $8 trillion, $9 Trillion a year to the current $4.7? [[There's no way to even know until 5 -7 some years after such a program was implemented. Even the CBO will have no idea).

In addition,... ACTUAL: debt isn't just the current year's deficit,.. or even the amount we have already had to borrow and are already paying interest on [[$21 Trillion). Rather,.. the ACTUAL debt includes the amounts we have already promised and commited ourselves to give away,.. and that number for the US is already well over $200 Trillion.

PS, big spending may or may not be wise [[how big, and on what?) but it is not treasonous. If deficits are treasonous then I would suppose you would favour charging every Republican president for the last 1/2 century w/treason?

Boarders on. When you use deficit spending to improve the country, or to jump start the economy,.. or to secure the boarders it's one thing,.. but when you intentionally damage the country for your own personal benefit,... that boarders on treason,.. yes. And for sure, the previous 4 presidents should be charged.

Also, there have been 2 'entitlement' expansions of note since the year 2000.

1) Medicare Part D - Drugs - Proposed and Signed by Republican President Bush

2) Medicaid Expansion - Obama

Which do you suppose was the more expensive?

Ding Ding, you win the prize if you said the Republican expansion, which will cost a bit over 100B this year; while Medicaid expansion runs in the 65B range.

https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-b...and-financing/




The US has a relatively meager welfare state.

But the highest uptake of Federal welfare programs is in Republican jurisdictions, where poverty is highest.

https://www.lexingtonlaw.com/blog/fi...tatistics.html


If you wanted to examine how the 'discretionary' part of the Federal budget is spent......

Once you include the OCO fund, then military spending is $989 billion. It's spread out among different agencies and budget categories, so you must add it all together. It includes:

• Defense Department base budget: $576 billion.
• DoD Overseas Contingency Operations: $174 billion.
• Departments that support defense: $212.9 billion. They include the Department of Veterans Affairs, State Department, Homeland Security, FBI and Cybersecurity, and the National Nuclear Security Administration.
• Emergency funding for support departments: $26.1 billion.

From here: https://www.thebalance.com/current-u...ending-3305763

***

If you want to fix the US deficit the answer is both reductions in military spending [[just cut the overseas bit to zero)

Then impose a national, broad sales tax at 5% [[yes, I know that requires a constitutional amendment)

But it would raise 270B per year.

https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/2016/52285

Also required is raising the retirement age to 68 or higher.

And raising the minimum age to receive non-disability based benefits to 65 or higher.

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/raising-e...getand-economy

Canada needs to do that to, even though our pension system is fully funded. It would allow more generous benefits.

Meager welfare state? Perhaps,.. but it's hard for anyone to think of 3/4 or our economy and growing as meager.

DISCRETIONARY PART? It's all discretionary, if they try hard enough. No one I know promised to give others our money, and NO ONE is entitled to free stuff. The name is in itself a misnomer.

I agree,.. SOS should be raised,.. but not to 65,.. rather to 72. It was meant to bolster a person's income in the last 5 years of their life,.. not be their entire income for the last 15 - 20. It should have been indexed to life-span,.. which currently stands at 78.7 years here.

Medicaid should be reeled back,... and the AMA should be eliminated. Flexner / Rockefeller medicine is a scam.

[Canadian Visitor]

And that's just the programs that are already in effect. What about the things that socialist politicians propose and say they'll push for if elected? Stuff like free college for all, Medicare for all, guaranteed minimum wages, etc. Just the Medicare for all would be more than our annual budget [[Currently 15% of Americans are on Medicare, yet it consumes 17.5% of our budget,.. and that's climbing by 1% a year. AND THAT'S with it being heavily subsidized by other insurance companies at the doctor's offices. Go in for a procedure and what you pay is based on who your coverage is though. Medicare pays out at the very low end of the spectrum [[so much so that many doctors won't accept it),.. so you get your kids tonsils out and it's $8,000 if you have Blue Cross,.. but only $1,900 if you pay cash. But if we go to medicare for all,.. it won't just cost $112% of our current total annual budget,.. but rather, it could easily double or more to something like 250%.

Medicaid/Medicare in the US OVER pays for most procedures and drugs, US private insurers pay even more.

This is a function of excessive administrative costs, out of control patent issuing without reasonable controls [[patents themselves are anti-market, remember this, though they serve a useful purpose if done correctly); as well as profit-at-every level of the system.

PS, whether one supports it or not, if there was gov't monopoly on healthcare, providers could and would take a lower reimbursement number as they would go out of business if they didn't.

So the Bernie Sander's and some other candidates for 2020,.. [[as well as AOC etc) are proposing adding what?? $8 trillion, $9 Trillion a year to the current $4.7? [[There's no way to even know until 5 -7 some years after such a program was implemented. Even the CBO will have no idea).

Any shift to greater gov't healthcare in the US will necessitate a means of funding that. No question. Payroll tax is the most likely, but it certainly should not be deficit funded.

In addition,... ACTUAL: debt isn't just the current year's deficit,.. or even the amount we have already had to borrow and are already paying interest on [[$21 Trillion). Rather,.. the ACTUAL debt includes the amounts we have already promised and commited ourselves to give away,.. and that number for the US is already well over $200 Trillion.

Unfunded liabilities are a serious issue. No question.

They are not, however, 'the debt' nor 'the deficit' these terms have a meaning.

Meager welfare state? Perhaps,.. but it's hard for anyone to think of 3/4 or our economy and growing as meager.

Uhhh, except for the fact that is entirely untrue.....

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/percent_gdp

Total US gov't spending, of all kinds, Federal, State and Local are collectively 35.9% of GDP.

That makes it entirely impossible for 'welfare' which is a subset of the above to represent 3/4 of the economy.

If one were discussing pure 'welfare' [[ie. SNAP or Section 8 benefits) these represent about 6% of total government spend, and therefore about 2.5% of the economy.

If one included pension and gov't funded healthcare of all types, one would get 48% of government spend, which would in turn be about 17% of GDP.

Nowhere near 3/4.

Again, you are welcome to your opinions and preferences but not to your own facts.

DISCRETIONARY PART? It's all discretionary, if they try hard enough. No one I know promised to give others our money, and NO ONE is entitled to free stuff. The name is in itself a misnomer.

That choice of words refers to the current legal description of the Federal Budget as enshrined in US law, not a personal characterization.

I agree,.. SOS should be raised,.. but not to 65,.. rather to 72. It was meant to bolster a person's income in the last 5 years of their life,.. not be their entire income for the last 15 - 20. It should have been indexed to life-span,.. which currently stands at 78.7 years here.

I suggested 68 or higher, not 65. My use of 65 references the right to take SS early, in exchange for a lower payout.

I was suggesting moving the number in sync w/whatever the new retirement age would be, ie early takers are retirement age minus three.

Medicaid should be reeled back

Not happening w/o some other means of guaranteed coverage. Politics 101.

,... and the AMA should be eliminated. Flexner / Rockefeller medicine is a scam.

Uhh, the AMA is an association whose right to exist is expressly protected by the US Constitutions express freedoms/rights.

[Bigdd]

They are not, however, 'the debt' nor 'the deficit' these terms have a meaning.

I was talking about how many trillions various politicians have "promised to give away" of other people's money,.. in exchange for votes. Future obligations + current debt IS THE SUM that best represents that.

Liars will try to blind you to that reality by talking in terms of deficit, or debt.

Uhhh, except for the fact that is entirely untrue.....

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/percent_gdp

Total US gov't spending, of all kinds, Federal, State and Local are collectively 35.9% of GDP.

Sneaky,.... I see what you did there. You rephrased what I said in terms of GDP,..

Again, you are welcome to your opinions and preferences but not to twist around what I say just so that you can claim I'm wrong.

Federal spending for 2018 was 4.09 Trillion a year. Soc Sec, Medicare, Medicaid and a couple other of the main "entitlements" was over $2.5 Trillion of that.. So just those made up 62% of spending. Then there's corporate welfare,...

Also,.. I'm not talking about JUST welfare and the like,.. but anyone receiving a government check. Whether it's corporate welfare, govt job, Soc Sec, welfare, food stamps, housing assistance, Medicare, Medicaid, Sect 8, etc, etc...... You get to a point where 50-60% of people are getting a gov't check of one form or another,.. and human nature is to vote for whomever promises to make those checks bigger,.. and POW. Down the tubes it goes.

If one were discussing pure 'welfare' [[ie. SNAP or Section 8 benefits) these represent about 6% of total government spend, and therefore about 2.5% of the economy.

No,.. no one wants to pretend that "SNAP and Sec 8" are the only entitlement programs.

Uhh, the AMA is an association whose right to exist is expressly protected by the US Constitutions express freedoms/rights.

Uh,.. sure, the right to exist,.. BUT,... since 1910 they've been way more than that. They were essentially made lord of all medicine by Congress.

https://worldaffairs.blog/2015/10/20...natural-cures/

[Canadian Visitor]

Sneaky,.... I see what you did there. You rephrased what I said in terms of GDP,..

Again, you are welcome to your opinions and preferences but not to twist around what I say just so that you can claim I'm wrong.

I did nothing sneaky and rephrased nothing. This is exactly what you said, quoted

"Meager welfare state? Perhaps,.. but it's hard for anyone to think of 3/4 or our economy and growing as meager. "

The Economy is not the Federal budget. The Economy is GDP, literally, figurative and in any and all other ways. If you didn't mean to use that word, then use another. But don't suggest I changed your meaning. I answered exactly what you wrote.

[Scottathew]

You DO realize that like 76% of the federal budget is Social Security and entitlements right?

That still does not explain how Republicans pissed away even more money. What does explain it is the huge tax breaks for the ultra-rich they passed [[which was more important than balancing the budget to the fully Republican controlled government). But don't worry, some of the breadcrumbs have hit the floor for us.

[Honky Tonk]

I'm the same way. Back in the early 00's I was young, religious, and a conservative Republican.

However, after I graduated college and got into the real world I started having a more diverse group of friends and coworkers. I had gay and Muslim friends. I started see more of what was out in the world and I realized that I had been groomed by certain key people [[friends, politicians, church) to have hate and fear towards many minority groups.

In the aftermath of our decisions in Iraq that resulted in tens if not hundreds of thousands of dead, innocent Iraqis, it was one political party that was trying to tell me that it was OK. I even had "Christian" friends try to justify our invasion of Iraq even with the knowledge we have today that there were no WMD's.

"Fiscal conservatism" of the Republicans is a joke, as we have watched the annual deficits rise while the Republicans controlled EVERYTHING for the first two years of the Trump era.

My experience with the intertwining of the Christian faith and the Republican party has sent me running away from both.

Interesting. I have Muslim friends justifying the attack and destruction of the Trade Towers, and the people inside.

[Scottathew]

Interesting. I have Muslim friends justifying the attack and destruction of the Trade Towers, and the people inside.

I've never met a single person of any background that has done that.

[archfan]

Interesting. I have Muslim friends justifying the attack and destruction of the Trade Towers, and the people inside.

Are they imaginary friends?

[Honky Tonk]

Are they imaginary friends?

No. I met them on YouTube. They made a video, speaking directly to me.

[oladub]

In the aftermath of our decisions in Iraq that resulted in tens if not hundreds of thousands of dead, innocent Iraqis, it was one political party that was trying to tell me that it was OK.

"Fiscal conservatism" of the Republicans is a joke, as we have watched the annual deficits rise while the Republicans controlled EVERYTHING for the first two years of the Trump era.

I largely agree. Bush lied about the WMD's but we mustn't forget his allies included many Democrats. Senator Clinton was a cheerleader for the Iraq war. Bernie, to his credit, voted against the Iraq war. Don't forget about Lyndon Johnson who got us into the Vietnam War in which 60,000 Americans died. Also, you neglected to mention that Obama/Kerry/Clintion overthrew Khaddafi and attempted to overthrow Assad causing additional hundreds of thousands of Arab deaths and added to the millions of refugees. When Trump mused about getting our troops out of Syria and half out of Afghanistan, he was driven back by neocons and Democrats who went silent.

I also agree that Republicans fell well short of fiscal conservatism. BushII doubled the national debt before Obama doubled it again. Obama raised the national debt by $120,000 for the average family of four. Trump is on track to run up the debt at the same rate as BushII. Canadian Visitor listed ideas about how to check spending. So far, we haven't heard of many ideas from Democrats. Which Democrat has proposed a plan to decrease the federal debt? I'm hearing free college, free health care, Green New Deal, providing for everyone crossing our open borders but so far nothing about shrinking the national debt.