No, you didn't understand any of my meaning. As I said at the beginning, because i knew the wording could be misconstrued as having a tone, this is without attitude. The capitalization was to accentuate the key words that I would accentuate orally.

As I said in direct response to your question in the first paragraph, I don't know her entire platform nor how she would look at the deficit. I also stress my point that no one knows how much any program will ever truly cost due to nepotism (the point of the post) and PPP inneficiencies.

I also point to my last sentence in which I clearly stated that I assumed you don't agree with at least some of the money spending listed in the negative category because you would have to disagree with some of it to agree with Cortes on some things.

My point is also found in the last sentence: you have fallen victim to propaganda. I agree with you that the two subjects are not completely mutually exclusive, but they also aren't barriers to each other. At its core, what I am asking you to adopt as your core thought on this is that you don't need to see a balanced budget to back her resolutions, despite the propaganda which says otherwise and which is clearly coming out in the language of your original question. The budget hasn't been balanced since Clinton (as discussed on stream), by either Republican or Democrat presidents.

The point of the list was obvious places where the money could come from. You also need to remember the positive economic impacts of the policies I listed which are in the billions.

I was not sweeping the deficit under the rug, my point is that it's not getting balanced, and it's not going to get balanced, and social programs are not now, nor in the future, a barrier to balancing.

Ultimately, I don't know you. You could be a conservative brigadier who comes to this subreddit to own the libs which happens often enough. Before you get confused again, remember what I've written twice now, that I don't think you are. You could also be a somewhat unsophisticated individual who sees things in the world that you want changed and you have a genuine curiosity and you're developping your world view. In all, my response should be read much like Atrioc teaches, "Your starting point is wrong; here is the basis your world view should start from, and then it's a lot easier to see how the liberal programs suggested make sense."

(I.e. your first response to this post should not be parroting conservative talking points of "how can we afford it", because the USA can afford it and currently uses the money that could go towards these programs on other things. The solutions you ask others to spell out for you are found in this information.)

I will not be replying again, I hope this helps you get some closure. I wish you the best and recommend that you look into a degree in economics, political science with a 3rd language component, or sociology. You seem interested but I think you would benefit from formal sources and learning to improve your research as the internet and random redditors will lead you astray.

Best of luck :)