Hacker News Reader

Comment by dworkr | Hacker News Reader

Exactly right. Revanchist politics lead to boom/bust debt cycles in government. One party spends way too much and hurts the citizens, the other party uses their mandate to fix the overspending as a pretext to subvert government controls and agencies, and slash and burn in a way that hurts citizens. And 95% of the population blindly, religiously even, suport this and yet don't feel at all responsible for the current state of affairs. "They did it!" seems like the new American ethos.

View on HN

National debt growth rates by President:

* Clinton (D): +31% over 8 years

* Bush (R): +105% over 8 years

* Obama (D): +70% over 8 years

* Trump (R): +40% over 4 years

* Biden (D): +21% over 4 years

Simply untrue to suggest "one party spends way too much" or that the other's "slash and burn" is at all related to strengthening our financial situation.

But that's it. I don't think slash and burn is related to debt, least not directly. That was my whole point. It's revanchist escalatory politics on both sides. When more than a few democrats acknowledge the debt and talk about cutting, and when more than a few republicans talk about increasing taxes, we can make progress. Until then we'll get more partisanship and sctivism, which means more games with the budget and thus more volatility and inefficiency in Washington, to the detriment of all federal workers, but to citizens also. The parties and powers that be are the winners. Everyone else loses. Moderate politics and less change is better for most people on average, certainly better for institutional stability, which is the core issue with DOGE's chainsaw approach to belt tightening.

I don't disagree with most of this except the continued characterization of this as "belt tightening."

It demonstrably has nothing to do with "belt tightening." If it did, the GOP wouldn't need a $4 trillion increase to the debt ceiling.

I think most government workers including elected officials in both parties will be biased towards spending and granting themselves more power over time. I think if each party actively damages the other party's cherished institutions and programs (eg by creating policies undermining the defense industrial base, or undermining SNAP) it will require excess spending just to stand still. Each party is stuck rebuilding stuff every 4 years and nothing gets done for either party's agenda, at astronomical expense. Tragic, and obviously unsustainable. In a perfect world, liberals push spending on useful well run programs and conservatives resist foolish spending on fads and over zealous interventions and policy with little impact. We need that balance. We do not have it. As such, those that want to burn it all down will win, unless the left change their ways. (Moderates on the right are and forever will be outgunned by the more intelligent, typically wealthier Milton Friedman types.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com