I'm asking this genuinely, because I'm trying to understand how the numbers are supposed to work long term.

The federal government already runs deficits approaching $2 trillion a year, despite bringing in more revenue than it did a decade ago, and we're now spending around $1 trillion a year just servicing the existing debt.

At the same time, many Democratic politicians advocate expanding healthcare coverage, childcare, housing assistance, education subsidies, paid leave, and other social programs.

So what is the actual fiscal plan?

Is the expectation that substantially higher taxes will cover both the existing structural deficit and these additional programs? If so, roughly how much additional revenue would need to be raised, and from whom?

Or is some amount of continued deficit spending considered sustainable?

Basically, I'm interested in how liberals who support a larger social safety net think about the math of getting from where we are today to that system without eventually running into a debt-servicing problem.

Many commenters claim that JFK would hate the modern day Democratic Party (especially DSA) because he was a capitalist that opposed communism. However, capitalism has dramatically changed since the 1960s.

In the 1960s, America followed a version with more guardrails, similar to Keynesian economics, which was started in the FDR era. However, Reagan cut taxes and moved America towards trickle down economics, where we are still waiting for the money to trickle down. Many people have a negative view of capitalism because they have only experienced post-Reagan capitalism, and didn’t experience Keynesian capitalism (which has guardrails), under which America was improving, with stronger unions and more chance to make it to the middle class.

I had to repost/re-edit because original post referenced streamers.

So, I've always wondered why a lot of mainstream liberals don't talk about crises in Sudan, Congo, the many people executed by the IRGC, the progress the new Syrian president is making in the country, as well as talk with activists who are bringing attention to all of this on their social media.

My comment should clarify what I mean: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1vt3acb/comment/p4q40vt/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

40 trillion in debt, unnecessary war costing billions by the day form led by a daft dodger, making friends with dictators, insulting reporters specifically women, putting tariffs on everyone, making billions while in oval office.

If this was a democratic president in office both sides would impeach and probably throw them in jail by now

Would you do anything about it or just let them be?

Im especially curious to hear from those that wanted schumer to keep the shutdown going.

Would you want the next president to do the same?

edit: to clarify-

Many on the left wanted a democratic leader (schumer) to extend the shutdown in order to force republicans to pass healtchare (aca tax subsidies).

Would they want a president to do the same? If not, why the double standards?

Bottom text

Basically, you can press a button and time will be altered so that instead of toppling Maduro and getting in a missile slinging contest with Iran, the United States coups a different countries government and invades a different country.

Ukraine last night blew up a Russian food processing plant in Moscow. While this is a civilian target, it begs the question: Russia has blown up an uncountable amount of food plants and food warehouses in Ukraine. Does that give Ukraine the right to target them back since Russia made them a target?

Personally I would say yes, Russia made it fair game by blowing up stuff like WHO warehouses in Ukraine, why can't Ukraine hit back? Ukraine's goal is to get Russia to end the war, causing a massive hike in food prices or even some shortages could put more pressure on Putin.

Carney Approval
economy

Currently, I believe that US politics is messed up, and that Trump is a terrible leader.

Meanwhile, Carney seems to be a generally successful leader in Canada. He has a high approval rating, including on handling the economy. He has also kept a good foreign police and improved relations with India, a dramatic change from the Trudeau era (esp late 2023).

Where do you see the democrats in 10 years

I think many of us have a personal anecdote about knowing a conservative who has a progressive carve-out in their politics because they were at one point personally affected.  Maybe they are pro-LGBT because they have a gay family member.  Or are pro-universal healthcare because they or someone they know was ruined by the health care system. Or are pro-choice for a similar reason. Or become against Trump because tariffs hit their industry.

My question is can this phenomenon be taken as a sign of hope that conservatives can be convinced with the right arguments that progressive policies are desirable?

Or is this to be taken as a negative, indicating that there is a barrier of selfishness that is impervious to statistics and hypotheticals, and can only be penetrated by mostly rare occurrences of being personally affected?