Why are presidential candidatesNOT talking about what should be the #1 issue for all Americans (if not the world)?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.


Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2017
No no, it is Democrats that peddle fear and doom with climate change. Republicans are just not sugar coating reality for SJWs.
And that nonsense about more people dying without proper access to preventative care. Fear mongering pinkos.
  • Like
Reactions: dank69


Golden Member
Sep 16, 2010
And that's just it - you can't "tax the rich" and get free college. You can tax them at 100%, it still won't equal the massive amount of money needed to pay for that shit.

The answer is always "We will tax THEM more!" - reality, math, and facts will tell you that it is simply impossible to pay for everything off the backs of rich people.

It's impossible? Then how do the many, many other rich countries with government provided college and health care do it?! One must be either stupid or lying to say that something is impossible when plenty of other countries are doing exactly that! If you're going to make an argument at least use an honest one, not something that's so dumb it's just a waste of time.

I'll even help you out: "I don't think rich people should pay tax for an educated, healthy population, that would yield positive ROI for all of society through increased economic activity, better workforce etcetc".
Last edited:


Jun 30, 2004
It generally pisses me off how freely and erroneously people interchange the words "deficit" and "debt". Debt is a stock; deficit is a flow which adds to debt.

After realizing the gross stupidity of some 40% (or more??!!) among the electorate with the 2016 election outcome, I can see that too many people don't have the slightest idea what they're complaining about.

Is it "political" that I judge Dubya Bush profligate in pursuing a $3+ trillion war? If he hadn't, our national debt would've been lower. ISIS might not have morphed out of Iraqi discontents, even if something else emerged instead.

Republicans have mismanaged our federal government from Bush to Trump. Trump doesn't manage anything: he just plays cabinet-musical chairs, with people who have no knowledge of the agency missions they oversee, like Carson or DeVos or Acosta . . . additional names so many I'd have to look them up to refresh my memory. Trump has been squandering money like a drunken sailor. His July 4 celebration was just a drop in the bucket and one of myriad examples.

We have CREATED an arms race with the Chinese, with defense spending that was perhaps ten or twenty times the cumulative total for the other top ten nation-state budgets. The Chuckleheads out in Trumpie land like Amy Kramer, who argued strenuously for massive increases in defense spending after the defense budget had been at $800 billion, always complain that the so-called liberal Democrats want to throw money at problems; Congressman Daryl Issa had said of Bush's war that waste, fraud and abuse would always be present with war-spending. But the Chuckleheads don't get it: it isn't how MUCH you spend, but how carefully you spend it. And countries who pursue wars while indulging in waste, fraud and abuse are at great risk for losing those wars.

I once gave $300 per year to the Republican National Committee. I wouldn't sit in the same church with one now. If I could boycott their businesses, I would pursue boycotts with the earnest intention of destroying those businesses and their lives. May Trump and his Base go straight to Hell, my God damn them to Hell. They're not my fellow human beings; they're space aliens from another galaxy. I wouldn't give them medical assistance if they were in a car accident bleeding in the ditch. I declare my own civil war!


Oct 18, 2005
Maybe in fantasy land where you can ride your unicorn over the rainbow so you can get your basic income pot of gold, nobody has to pay for insurance or whatever else you want to call it for their healthcare anymore,

but the rest of us in the real world will bear the brunt of it through taxes, fees, co-pays, etc. unless we are the fortunate rich elite that can take advantage of our affluenza loopholes and tax/money shelters to limit or avoid paying the true costs.



Oct 10, 1999
Sanders has been fighting against tax cuts for the wealthy for a very long time.
Hes also fighting against the military industrial complex
Nothing Bernie Sanders talks about is pie in the sky either. Its all stuff that all other normal countries are already doing.


Mar 25, 2001
The tax cuts were a very fiscally irresponsible move to make as it as we all damned well know ballooned the federal debt even further. We need those taxes to pay the bills. BUT that’s no excuse to not talk about the problem of spending though. There’s finger pointing (justifiably) but at the end of the day pointing fingers doesn’t pay the bills.

Neither party cares about bankrupting the country. Spend spend spend. I’m absolutely for a progressive tax code, a simplified one, one that does away with loopholes, and until we can pay down what we owe we need to have the tax rates at higher levels than they are across the board for everyone.

But the goal needs to be not more taxation so that we can spend more. That just ends up with the government continuing to grow more and more bloated. My kids I’m sure will be thrilled at it.

No politician campaigns on honesty by saying yes well need to raise your taxes and at the same time we need to cut back on how much were spending. That doesn’t buy votes into office. Instead on the right we hear cutting taxes but nary a peep on cutting spending. On the left we hear raise taxes but never getting spending under control, quite the opposite in fact. Lots of huge promises about "free" this and that and when asked how it’s always the same answer of The Rich.

Both parties want to increase the debt and of course neither admits it. It’s always the other sides fault.


No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
Conservatards dig a big hole then yell "Why aren't you fuckers fixing this hole!"

It's getting really old.


Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
Bring back hardcore estate taxes. Start there.
Then figure out how to get multibillion dollar corporations that are making money hand over fist that are paying zero taxes to pay some taxes.
Cut the size of the US military in half. Get out of Afghanistan and Iraq.

That'll make a considerable dent in the deficit if you care about these things.


Feb 15, 2002
Bring back hardcore estate taxes. Start there.
Then figure out how to get multibillion dollar corporations that are making money hand over fist that are paying zero taxes to pay some taxes.
Cut the size of the US military in half. Get out of Afghanistan and Iraq.

That'll make a considerable dent in the deficit if you care about these things.
And if a Democrat wins the 2020 election, conservatives will be crying about the deficit and all of their ways to "fix" it will include none of that.

Their "solutions" will be to take away the "entitlements" (I hate that word) from the people that need them most. That's the only way they can think of to cut spending, how their base falls for it everytime is beyond me.


Jun 30, 2004
America emerged from the complaint "no taxation without representation". Since then, we've always had representation. But there's a mindset overlapping the "small role of government" philosophy that much "domestic" spending is unnecessary; regulation is unnecessary; anything but defense (allowing rich stockholders to make money off the government and get back "their" taxes) -- is unnecessary, socialist -- bad. They often buttress this argument with an Ayn Rand notion that this is all "altruism" and selfishness is a better virtue.

But it isn't about altruism. Since you have "representation", you have "obligation" -- to pay taxes. Trump's disclosure avoidance, together with sufficient data proving criminality, and his boast of "paying as little as possible" (suggesting fraud) is a toxic example to set for people who put the cart before the horse with beliefs "trumping" common sense. America is in the throes of a corruption crisis.

I pay for lots of things provided by the government that I might not be eager for or want. I paid for the Vietnam War. I'm paying for Bush's 2003 Iraq War. I may be paying for inefficient or frivolous defense spending to line the pockets of contractors. But I have an obligation to pay.

As for "the rich", we're forgetting here about all the corporate loopholes, offshore tax avoidance and outright tax fraud.

Ending Jimmy Carter's term, the national debt was 29% of GDP. At the end of Reagan/Bush, it was 55%. And at the end of Clinton's term, it was still 55%.

The first thing to do is to staunch the deficit. The second thing to do would be to be more judicious about massive war outlays for conflicts more wisely avoided. And I can think of a whole bunch of other things that can be done, still moving toward Progressive objectives.

We have "representation". If I think my taxes are too high so that I can't feed my family, I'll write to my congressman. If someone else thinks that no taxes will put a new Lexus in their driveway sooner, consider that government spending domestically is stimulus, and stimulus may help satisfy your purely personal desire for more expensive "stuff". But don't just assume that your new Lexus is the only basis in election choices. There's something called "the public interest", and the public interest can be relabeled "enlightened self-interest".


Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
I've been quietly waiting for ANY candidate at ANY to address our burgeoning federal deficit. So far I've heard crickets. Without economic "freedom" and the ability to pay for all of these pie-in-the-sky programs that candidates are pushing ... how would they ever come to reality?


As U.S. debt, deficits mount, presidential candidates sweep them under the rug

"In four hours of debate among Democratic contenders for the U.S. presidency, the word “deficit” was never uttered and the government’s debt was mentioned only once.

The reality is that Democrats are reluctant to make a campaign issue out of one of America’s most vexing problems — the ballooning annual budget deficits and overall debt under President Donald Trump.

That’s because some of their most popular policies going into the 2020 election would present significant budget challenges of their own, including expanding Medicare health coverage and offering government help to cut college costs and reduce student debt.

While Democrats insist they have workable plans that will cover the costs of these proposals, Republicans counter that their tax-the-rich solutions are not realistic.

On their side of the political divide, Republicans are equally interested in keeping mum on the subject, having happily backed Trump’s massive tax cuts and a surge in military spending - two key drivers of the deficit blow-out - after championing fiscal conservatism for years.

By supporting Trump, many Republican lawmakers have essentially abandoned an already fading commitment to balanced budgets and cutting the national debt.

“I don’t think in this election cycle there seems to be much of an interest in addressing the issue,” lamented Senator Rob Portman, a former White House budget director.

Portman, a Republican, is seen as a hawk on government spending, although he was also a strong defender of the 2017 tax-cut law that will drive up the national debt by at least $1 trillion over 10 years.


Many economists worry rising debt will bring higher interest costs, increasing the pressure on future governments to make deep spending cuts or even causing the United States to default on its debt payments, which could wreak havoc on a global scale.

It’s like having termites underneath the porch, said Bill Hoagland, a senior vice president at the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington think tank focused on fiscal policy: “You step on the porch and everything’s fine... Then one day, you fall through.”

When he was running for president, Trump told The Washington Post he would pay off the national debt in about eight years. Instead, it has increased by $2.45 trillion since he took office in January 2017.

The total debt outstanding, amassed over many years of deficits, is now $22.4 trillion, its highest level ever, equal to about $68,000 of debt for every American.

The deficit has jumped from $666 billion in fiscal 2017, the final year President Barack Obama’s administration had an impact on budgets, to an expected $900 billion this year, and is projected to exceed $1 trillion a year by 2022.

“The prospect of such high and rising debt poses substantial risks for the nation,” the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said last month in its latest long-term outlook.

With the U.S. economy expanding, inflation and unemployment low and the stock market near record levels, the government could be expected to take advantage of the strong fundamentals to reduce deficits. But the opposite is happening.

Asked about rising deficits last month, White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow last month downplayed concerns: “It doesn’t bother me right now.”"
Would you mind explaining why it's the Democrat's fault that govt spending and the deficit have ballooned under Trump?