Great, FightBasicLogic is back. I want you to talk about the implications of that. Explain what the issue is with deficits in general. If you split the economy up into the public sphere and the private sphere, the public deficit is equal to the private surplus. Explain what the implications of that are, and explain what you would do about that. See, we could reduce the deficit, the state could start to take in more than it spends, but guess what that does Mr. Libertarian? That will result in a reduction in the private surplus, less money would be in the hands of the private economy. Now, since inequality has exploded, and since wages have stagnated for most while the costs of everything have grown exponentially for decades now, surely you would want to reduce that horrible deficit by taking money away from the rich, right? After all, they have high propensities to save, when you give them money, they don’t spend and inject that money into the economy like the poor and middle class do. This is a fact, countless studies and basic common sense would tell you that. I would also love to hear what you think the macroeconomic implications would be of taking even more from the poor. You want to take money out of the economy, and take money from people with high propensities to spend (I would guess as a silly libertarian you would take away programs that benefit the poor), what would you do about the massive amount of demand that you are then taking out of the economy? And if the government is no longer injecting demand into the economy, which you seem to object to, how exactly would the economy grow? We know that when governments cut back spending on basic services, the private savings rate increases. Risk is privatized, so people have to put more money away so they can pay when they get sick (if they can), or when they have an emergency. That further depresses demand, every dollar saved is not spent on goods and services that those lovely capitalists provide.
If you want Medicare to be cheaper (already is and has less waste/overhead than the private health insurance industry), then you would support traditional Medicare, not the inferior private spinoffs? You would allow Medicare to use its economies of scale to bargain down the price of drugs? And surely, if you are concerned about spending too much on healthcare, you would support single payer, which studies show would save us trillions in the next decade alone. I mean, it makes no sense to analyze public spending with our factoring in private spending at the same time. It makes no sense to discuss public debt without discussing private debt (and private debt is much larger). It makes no sense to talk about deficits without acknowledging that those deficits result in a private surplus. If the stupid right wing had their way, we would have a balanced budget amendment. That would make it so that the government couldn’t inject any more or demand into the economy. In that context, the only way the economy could grow, and the only way the monetary base could grow, would be private banks lending money and creating money out of thin air in the so called “fractional reserve banking system.” That would result in an explosion in private debt. We have massive trade deficits, so we shouldn’t expect an influx of money from trade, and a capital surplus would go towards the rich. Doesn’t make sense that they would invest domestically when people are getting paid low wages as is (so private demand is low) and when the state is then unable to inject money into the economy.
You libertarians seem to want everything to go to shit.