KangAnon wrote on Apr 30
th, 2017 at 9:53am:
But it doesn't take into account the "how" or "why" there was a drop. But without citing that policy or actions Trump took to reduce the debt, the fact that it happened under his watch is enough for his supporters.
We have to be careful when talking about deb levels too. Especially highlighted by out local politics, often the Coalition will talk about reducing debt because their opposition's spending was out of control, but the only way they can reduce debt since they don't touch any of the negative spending that benefits them and their donors interests is to under invest where it matters.
Sure the debt level may look better in the short term, but they've created a deficit elsewhere, like in education, health or infrastrucuture funding.
Of course the following Government need to address this issue, which costs money, which then adds to the debt. The Coalition then complains about debt levels and the cycle continues.
I'm not familiar enough with the US system, but I mostly see Trump supporters advocating for him to issue deep cuts to anything Obama funded. Literally anything, doesn't matter what it is. If Obama didn't cut it, or worse, increased funding, unless it's military, it's gotta go, for the sake of the debt levels.
It's that kind of blinkered thinking that will create further inequity amongst the people, all while it will be framed as Trump "caring about the people and the country".
It doesn't take a genius to figure it out. But more on topic, it shows that while there is no doubt a liberal bubble and there is. Without it there wouldn't have been such voter apathy or "she'll be right" attitude and Trump wouldn't have won.
But don't anyone for a second think that there isn't an equally if not stronger conservative bubble, especially around the celebrity persona of "Billionaire Trump".