Please see Stephen Miller post explaining why this is not applicable. I posted it in the thread.
I understand that you feel strongly but unless we proceed logically with the possible, intentions are irrelevant.
This sentence for example makes no sense “It is easier to bring back industry to the US when we are not running massive deficits.” The two issues are isolated with no correlation.
Also since the deficit cannot be brought down with any cuts that would be possible your conclusion is circling chairs on the Titanic. IOW lets cry the sky is falling while doing nothing.
First step growth, all possible correction of waste & fraud next, and only after growth is occurring will the deficit reduce.
Wow....
Okay, when you run large deficits - and especially when we are in the territory in which we are now in fiscally - the result is either 1) inflation or 2) higher interest rates. Or both. A recent illustration of this is how Moody's downgraded U.S. credit.
Both of those conditions -- inflation and higher interest rates -- make capital investment more difficult. And large-scale capital investment is going to be required to expand domestic U.S. manufacturing. Therefore, running high deficits is going to make it harder to bring back U.S. manufacturing.
A lot of the stuff in Trump's bill amounts to payoffs for a populist campaign, which I didn't support then and do not support now. Buying votes/support with government money is what the left has done. But now, it seems to be GOP policy as well. I don't blame in the least Paul and those other Republicans who are calling this stuff out.
I saw Miller's analytical sleight of hand -- he's taking the saving from the Medicaid cuts, projecting them out ten years, and counting all of that as savings when promoting the bill, but then saying that you can't do the exact same thing for other spending in the bill that pushes things higher.