Can the conclusion be drawn that Republicans have hardened their position around ideology rather than policy? Policy advances national progress and growth and leads to job creation, security for families, and, yes, greater wealth.
Does using the debt ceiling as a threat to disrupt the government that supports the world’s largest economy advance these goals?
The debt would decline rapidly if the economy begins growing at its historic rates. The jobs created and the economic expansion would not only create new revenues but also reduce the revenues spent on safety net programs.
Stagnation would rise rapidly when the world observes the US, its main economic engine, at risk. What benefit, near or far, is gained from a shut down of the economic authority of government? What benefit is gained by sudden, disruptive cuts in programs? Will it increase trade? Will it build factories? Will it lower social costs or simply transfer them to families whose income and productivity will be further reduced?
Even if re-invested, how long after the massive shock would it take for the economy to regain its footing? How would working families be affected?
One party seems to want to follow a course in which the means of reducing debt doesn’t preserve value but destroys the house. Is ideology confusing disruption and destruction with reduction–or is that its real intent?
What do these two graphs tell you? One charts participation by age; the other unemployment? How are these trends combined? Leave a comment below!