Ordinarily it would be enough imho to chart a policy aimed at reducing the deficit.
the problem is that every time the liberals control the federal government, they spend like a drunken sailor on shore leave (gotta love that analogy). in the 1960s, iirc, the reasoning given was that the USA was “rich enough” to afford whatever liberal program was being proposed. nowadays, if liberals happen to be in power, they justify more spending by citing the “modern monetary theory,” which i do not understand but apparently says that increasing government spending is always somehow ok.
intermittently, so far as i can tell, a claim is made that if we increase our national productivity, we generate more goods, thus becoming potentially richer. national productivity is increased classically by increased automation (basically a continuation of improved efficiency of the industrial revolution). nowadays so far as i can tell people are citing AI as an incipient means of improved efficiency (on top of increased automation) (iow, robots replacing human workers). some such as elon musk even predict that humans will be freed from ordinary everyday jobs and thus there will be a need for universal basic income to replace ordinary wages for most people.
iirc conservatives have traditionally sought to reduce spending by making appeals to voters’ common sense: if you spend more than you earn then eventually you will go bankrupt and lose everything you own. historically, this argument seems to have failed to sway most voters, who keep voting for more spending.
i think trump is in part acknowledging the failure of the classical “more spending leads to bankruptcy” argument, and in part acknowledging the “AI leading to UBI” argument. in addition to, or beyond this, he can also argue for more domestic drilling for cheaper energy to reduce prices.
insofar as SS taxes go, i (for one) did not know SS would become taxable (until after Clinton, of course). it does however sound to me as if it is a breach of contract given that SS was originally collected under the premise that it would not be taxed. this should imho be a win for seniors although i suspect most seniors already support trump. if millenials can hold the line on taxes, it will eventually be a win for them as well. what is not clear to me is if they will even notice.
(maybe someone out there can highlight the difference between Keynsian economics and MMT)
I am severely offended by your analogy of a drunken sailor. As a former drunken sailor I can assure you that I eventually ran out of money and sources to obtain money. We had limits to our drunken spending. RATS on the other hand simply print more money and keep spending. True drunken Sailors are disciplined compared to Congress😂