As I noted earlier. There are many economists (who actually know stuff) who agree with you about the US (and other's) financial future.
Here is a bit from "The Economist" this week:
It is safe to say that neither Kamala Harris nor Donald Trump will win November’s presidential election by pledging fiscal prudence. The deficit and debt are afterthoughts for most Americans these days. And proposals from both candidates for cleaning up the country’s finances are fundamentally unserious. Mr Trump has talked about using cryptocurrency or drilling for oil in order to pay off the national debt—ideas that amount to utter nonsense. Although Ms Harris has vowed to reduce the deficit, she has declined to offer any substantive plan for doing so.
Still, there comes a time in an election campaign when the candidates have aired enough policy ideas that budget wonks can start to work out who would preside over a bigger deficit. One such estimate, released on August 26th by the Penn Wharton Budget Model (PWBM), a non-partisan research group, seems to leave little doubt that Ms Harris would be far more fiscally responsible than Mr Trump. According to its calculations, Mr Trump’s economic agenda would increase federal deficits by $5.8trn over the next decade, nearly five times as much as Ms Harris’s platform, which would add $1.2trn to the deficit during the same period.
™ Version 4.2
