Missing Democratic Talking Points.... Fiscal.

Using massive deficits in the 80's did cause the Dems to cave so the Right's new strategy was to create as much debt as possible...

But we don't hear much about debt any more from the Dems... not since the late 90s when Clinton vetoed some irresponsible GOP tax cut bills.

It really touches every other issue.

Number 7 could be seen as "corruption" but what if it's just honest screw the worker ideology? The GOP has pushed this pity the job creator narrative for decades. Trickle down... and all that.

True corruption is a quid pro quo. Ideological dysfunction falls into a different category.

The other half of Democratic messaging dysfunction is the lack of historical context that provides voters a compelling counter-narrative to the "pity the poor Billionaire" bull crap.

Progressive Dems need a compelling historical narrative to counter the Orwellian Right fables about job creators and tax cuts are just "your money". Here's what I'd like to hear them say....

The economic triumph of the 20th century was the taming of amoral if not sociopathic rat-eat-rat capitalism. This was done by ending child labor, fighting sweatshop conditions, imposing safe food and drug laws, highly progressive income taxes, wage and hour laws, a minimum wage, protections for unions, social safety net taxes like SS, UI, DI, Medicare, safe car and product laws, safe working condition laws, pollution controls, a minimum wage etc.

AND THESE MEASURES WERE JUST.

Business gets immense help from the government from free intellectual property monopolies like patents and copyrights and free limited liability protection for corporate owners all which enable great wealth. Corporate profits were no longer going to be easily subsidized by harming consumers, or exploiting workers, communities, and the environment.

In the 50's and 60s that value of the minimum wage almost tripled in real value. Unions were strong. The wealth of the economy was being spread around. New safety net laws helped the working poor or those unable to work. The federal government was investing in new schools, highways, housing, highways and other infrastructure. These public investments and government policies were the REAL tide that raised all boats. Government made possible the conditions under which we and business could flourish, and then used that tax revenue to bootstrap the nation to higher levels of productivity. That symbiotic relationship was America's proverbial goose that laid the golden egg.

But that dark, pathological, side of the American Right is always present... always trying to reclaim the benefits of those government freebies for the malignant rich... and to screw everyone else. They can never be honest about this sociopathic agenda. So they resort to endless deception.

In general terms I more or less agree with you, but point #1 contains a serious logical error. Debt is definitionally both a liability and an asset. One could just as easily say we are setting up future generations to be owed a boatload of money. The real question is distributional (who will be taxed, and who will collect the payments).

By that you mean that 23 trillion in debt is an asset to us... and debt to future taxpayers?

Of course we're already paying for the use of that money by paying interest. And CBO projects net interest alone will be about 820 BILLION by 2030 and we'll piss away 6 trillion in debt over that time. So regardless of the word games here.. that debt and those crushing interest payments will be a liability in that it crowds out using that same money to buy something of value for the American People. .

We pass on everything to future generations, not just debt. I don't agree with current fiscal policy, but failure to spend what it takes to maintain infrastructure, preserve natural systems, educate and care for people, etc. - even if that means incurring more debt - would put future generations in a worse position.

But it's really irrelevant to my point which is just about us as citizens.

My point in these talking points is political.. to reframe the public debate by undermining right wing talking points.

That's why I began by saying I think I understand and basically agree with your general point. But I don't think my observation is irrelevant at all. Point #1 (which is factually incorrect) can be - and often is - used to promote austerity, which is far more damaging than debt. If you're trying to reframe the debate, I'd caution against including a poison pill among your arguments.

It's not a poison pill except to far right ideologues if it includes true numbers about how the GOP has slashed revenue.

When corrected for inflation on-budget revenue has dropped from 2015 to 2019... in millions from https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/hist01z1-fy2020.xlsx

2015 $2,479,515 = $2,479,515 (2015 dollars)
2016 $2,457,781 = $2,422,323 (2015 dollars)
2017 $2,465,564 = $2,369,415 (2015 dollars)
2018 $2,475,157 = $2,333,043 (2015 dollars)
2019 $2,547,893* = $2,361,196 (2015 dollars)

* https://fiscal.treasury.gov/files/reports-statements/mts/mts0919.pdf
* includes about 30 billion more in tariffs than FY18

Inflation calculations done at the official government inflation site: https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl using the end of the fiscal year date... the 30th of Sept, for all calculations.

It's been now 40 years and the Dems STILL can't devise a compelling argument to expose the GOP's true agenda for weaponizing fiscal irresponsibility? Of course Dems may be reluctant because once Obama ran on making permanent most of Bush's irresponsible tax cuts the Dems lost some moral high ground.

I.e., "the Federal debt will impoverish our grandchildren," or something similar. It's bunk.

Saying it's "bunk" doesn't make for much of an argument.

When Reagan's massive deficit strategy didn't work the GOP Moved to the massive debt model... to sabotage Clinton's debt paydown and run up as much debt as possible. Are you suggesting they've just adopted a new economic model that debt doesn't matter? Or that they never abandoned Reagan's idea to undermine New Deal and Great Society programs... actually the far Right is worse than Reagan. Reagan worked with Dems to save SS. Bush wanted to privatize it.

I tend to still be a bit on the fiscal conservative side and don't buy into MMT.

And at this point I'm beginning to question your motives for posting in this thread.

2. I explained in post numbers 8 and 10 why it's bunk. Do you need more elaboration?
3. This has nothing to do with MMT.
4. What are your suspicions about my motives?

Because it's just as much as a poison pill to the GOP to show the reduced revenue numbers... and if any parent has a conscience they don't want to steal from their kids.

So you then just ignore that to deficits and debt don't matter. Well Gee... so think the GOP isn't trying to sabotage the fiscal health but they have some noble motive?

Seems your idea of "bunk" just happens to undermine arguments the Dems should have been making 40 years ago that might have prevented the GOP from doing so much damage.