OT: US 30 year treasury above 5% for the longest period since 2007

[horshack.sixpack]

Seems like a bad sign. Economic geniuses weigh in. Not quite at the same length yet...

 

[CoastTrash]

cannot wait to buy cheap assets with free money from the gov. if other those other people would stop being free loaders...

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

It’s usually the canary in the coal mine.

 

[BTCMoonBoy]

Oil will drive up inflation leading to hawkish fed. Sit in cash for now to pick up late Oct bargains

 

[ETK99]

Oil will drive up inflation leading to hawkish fed. Sit in cash for now to pick up late Oct bargains

I think that Trumps plan for the new Fed chief is to actually cut rates

 

[Podgy]

I'm old enough to remember when the national debt and deficit mattered or at least politicians and voters said it mattered. Now no one seems to care how much debt we pile up. In 2000 we had a budget surplus and declining national debt of $5 trillion. It's grown by almost $35 trillion since then. Oh well. We can sell all the stuff we bought on eBay or FB to get some of our money back, right?

 

[Bdog9090]

I'm old enough to remember when the national debt and deficit mattered or at least politicians and voters said it mattered. Now no one seems to care how much debt we pile up. In 2000 we had a budget surplus and declining national debt of $5 trillion. It's grown by almost $35 trillion since then. Oh well. We can sell all the stuff we bought on eBay or FB to get some of our money back, right?

This is correct. The part of fiscal conservatism that is for restrained or budget positive spending no longer exists in American politics.

 

[DawgsNCowboys87]

I think that Trumps plan for the new Fed chief is to actually cut rates

If you think he can even plan your fooling yourself. However the VP can but trumps too busy cuckholding him or anyone in his group with an opinion or truth whatever it may be, Vance has a plan however.

 

[BoDawg.sixpack]

I'm old enough to remember when the national debt and deficit mattered or at least politicians and voters said it mattered. Now no one seems to care how much debt we pile up. In 2000 we had a budget surplus and declining national debt of $5 trillion. It's grown by almost $35 trillion since then. Oh well. We can sell all the stuff we bought on eBay or FB to get some of our money back, right?

There was never a year over year decrease in the national debt during the Clinton admin. Yes, we had surpluses, no that doesn't mean the national debt actually declined. The increase was very small in 2000 but it was still an increase.

 

[mstateglfr]

I think that Trumps plan for the new Fed chief is to actually cut rates

...which begs the question- why would a president have a plan for the new Fed chief to follow?

 

[horshack.sixpack]

I think that Trumps plan for the new Fed chief is to actually cut rates

Politicians 17ng around with fed chiefs policy setting is it a winning strategy.*** Of course eschewing competence at every turn in favor of blind loyalty is just where we are right now.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

...which begs the question- why would a president have a plan for the new Fed chief to follow?

Asking why about this admin is not going to yield meaningful results. Same reason we have the caveman begging congress for more billions to fight a war they didn’t vote for. Same reason we have tariff roulette with spins every 24 hours to determine what’s on and off, same reason we had caveman and Trump berating our European allies about not pitching in on an ill advised war that we started unilaterally and without any planning or concensus, same reason an 80 yo man acts like a petulant child more focused on themselves, loyalty and revenge than anything else, same reason a bunch of people who voted for “America First” are finding out that the Pentagon is spending all of our money on war mongering while also killing us with inflation, and directly driving up the price of gas, etc. The list is actually quite long and the answer can be found if you google “toxic narcissist”…

 

[Drebin]

I think that Trumps plan for the new Fed chief is to actually cut rates

Yeah, that was before all this Iran BS. Would be counterproductive at this point.

 

[Drebin]

...which begs the question- why would a president have a plan for the new Fed chief to follow?

Because the last fed chief made decisions based on politics instead of what was good for the economy.

 

[johnson86-1]

This is correct. The part of fiscal conservatism that is for restrained or budget positive spending no longer exists in American politics.

The last time anybody made a nod at fiscal conservatism, democratic leaning groups ran ads showing Paul Ryan rolling granny off a cliff and they were effective. We don't have fiscal conservatism because there's nobody that will vote for it. The vast majority of voters would rather live in denial than address social security or medicare. We won't be able to address it until there is a crisis. That could be a small crisis in 6 or 7 years when the social security and medicare "trust funds" runs out. Or if Congress just votes to continue as is and transfer money from the general budget to social security (which is definitely an option since the trust fund isn't a real fund anyway, but just tracking numbers), it could be a major crisis when people will no longer lend to the US at rates that won't cause a debt spiral. That could happen at any time, but presumably we have a good bit longer to be irresponsible before then, although all it causes is a loss of faith in the bond market and we could get there before the SS and medicare trust funds run out.

 

[goindhoo]

Asking why about this admin is not going to yield meaningful results. Same reason we have the caveman begging congress for more billions to fight a war they didn’t vote for. Same reason we have tariff roulette with spins every 24 hours to determine what’s on and off, same reason we had caveman and Trump berating our European allies about not pitching in on an ill advised war that we started unilaterally and without any planning or concensus, same reason an 80 yo man acts like a petulant child more focused on themselves, loyalty and revenge than anything else, same reason a bunch of prolly who voted for “America First” are finding out that the Pentagon is spending all of our money on war mongering while also killing is with inflation, and directly driving up the price of gas, etc. The list is actually quite long and the answer can be found if you google “toxic narcissist”…

I'll be the first to say Trump hasnt done everything right the second time around, but do you remember what preceded him? inflation, open boarders, ukraine donations, energy production restrictions, etc. Pick your poison.

 

[mstateglfr]

Because the last fed chief made decisions based on politics instead of what was good for the economy.

The new Fed chair will make national financial decisions based on politics(what the president wants)...because some feel the last chairman made financial decisions based on politics?

The Fed is supposed to be independent though. Your explanation seems to justify something that is screwed up by pointing to it being screwed up before.
2 wrongs dont make a right, and whatnot.

 

[JackReacherDawg]

The last time anybody made a nod at fiscal conservatism, democratic leaning groups ran ads showing Paul Ryan rolling granny off a cliff and they were effective. We don't have fiscal conservatism because there's nobody that will vote for it. The vast majority of voters would rather live in denial than address social security or medicare. We won't be able to address it until there is a crisis. That could be a small crisis in 6 or 7 years when the social security and medicare "trust funds" runs out. Or if Congress just votes to continue as is and transfer money from the general budget to social security (which is definitely an option since the trust fund isn't a real fund anyway, but just tracking numbers), it could be a major crisis when people will no longer lend to the US at rates that won't cause a debt spiral. That could happen at any time, but presumably we have a good bit longer to be irresponsible before then, although all it causes is a loss of faith in the bond market and we could get there before the SS and medicare trust funds run out.

This right here shows the problem. To people like J85, "fiscal conservatism" has always meant "cut what i want to cut anyway". They've never been serious about it. That became clear years ago even to the densest folk and everyone stopped listening.

 

[mstateglfr]

The vast majority of voters would rather live in denial than address social security or medicare. We won't be able to address it until there is a crisis. That could be a small crisis in 6 or 7 years when the social security and medicare "trust funds" runs out.

I read and hear a lot of comments from voters who recognize the shortfall that exists. They even provide a solution(what they think is a solution)- eliminate the withholding cap.
From what I have read, eliminating that cap would close 60-70% of the 75year long range funding shortfall.

Whether that is a solution you agree with or not is beside the point. The point of this post is to show you that there are a lot of voters who dont live in denial and advocate for a solution.

 

[John Deaux VII]

I'll be the first to say Trump hasnt done everything right the second time around, but do you remember what preceded him? inflation, open boarders, ukraine donations, energy production restrictions, etc. Pick your poison.

Not done everything right? Every single major policy decision that he has made has been inflationary and any economic advisor would have told him that before he did it.

 

[ckDOG]

I'm old enough to remember when the national debt and deficit mattered or at least politicians and voters said it mattered. Now no one seems to care how much debt we pile up. In 2000 we had a budget surplus and declining national debt of $5 trillion. It's grown by almost $35 trillion since then. Oh well. We can sell all the stuff we bought on eBay or FB to get some of our money back, right?

Running on deficit reduction can get you elected to office. Keeping the money flowing keeps you there.

 

[johnson86-1]

This right here shows the problem. To people like J85, "fiscal conservatism" has always meant "cut what i want to cut anyway". They've never been serious about it. That became clear years ago even to the densest folk and everyone stopped listening.

Fiscal conservatism has pretty much always meant keep spending and taxes low, not tax and spend. We have lots of things we can cut and clearly there is much more waste than even most cynical people believed. But we're not going to get to a reasonable spending level without cutting actual services.

Just welfare (SSDI, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, etc.), national defense, and interest on the national debt exceed revenues. We could stop everything else and still need to cut. We are collecting 67% more per person in the US in taxes than we did in 1980 in inflation adjusted dollars. So it's not that we have a revenue problem. We strictly have a spending problem.

 

[johnson86-1]

I read and hear a lot of comments from voters who recognize the shortfall that exists. They even provide a solution(what they think is a solution)- eliminate the withholding cap.
From what I have read, eliminating that cap would close 60-70% of the 75year long range funding shortfall.

Whether that is a solution you agree with or not is beside the point. The point of this post is to show you that there are a lot of voters who dont live in denial and advocate for a solution.

So that's not a solution. That's a significant increase in marginal tax rates (moving the top marginal tax rate from ~38.45 to 45.55 (an ~18.5% increase), although arguably the Net investment income tax should be included, and it doesn't even solve the easier problem among entitlements.

People whose sole argument is that other people should pay more money are still in denial. There's not enough other people's money for us to take. We actually have to cut spending, at least in real terms.

 

[DawgsNCowboys87]

I strongly suggest you all read THIS and think on it a while if you don’t get it it’s your fault: In other words he’s waiting to stick the metaphorical loaded syringe right into America’s Vein, it’s been his plan this whole time just below:


2016, JD Vance wrote a famous essay in The Atlantic comparing Donald Trump to "cultural heroin" and describing his political promises as a "needle in America’s collective vein". [1, 2]

The 2016 Essay

• • "Cultural Heroin": Vance argued that Trump offered an easy, superficial escape from deep economic and social pain without providing real solutions. [1, 2, 3]
  • The Needle Analogy: He wrote that Trump's populist appeals entered people's minds and acted as "the needle in America's collective vein". [1, 2]

Evolution of Support

• • Past Criticism: Vance was a vocal critic of Trump during the 2016 election cycle before his political alignment shifted.
  • Current Stance: Vance has since stated that Trump proved him wrong by being a successful president, leading to his current role as Vice President. [1, 2]

 

[HRMSU]

The last time anybody made a nod at fiscal conservatism, democratic leaning groups ran ads showing Paul Ryan rolling granny off a cliff and they were effective. We don't have fiscal conservatism because there's nobody that will vote for it. The vast majority of voters would rather live in denial than address social security or medicare. We won't be able to address it until there is a crisis. That could be a small crisis in 6 or 7 years when the social security and medicare "trust funds" runs out. Or if Congress just votes to continue as is and transfer money from the general budget to social security (which is definitely an option since the trust fund isn't a real fund anyway, but just tracking numbers), it could be a major crisis when people will no longer lend to the US at rates that won't cause a debt spiral. That could happen at any time, but presumably we have a good bit longer to be irresponsible before then, although all it causes is a loss of faith in the bond market and we could get there before the SS and medicare trust funds run out.

Wealth tax coming as soon as the DSA gets enough numbers and the yutes swallow the anti-capitalism line hook and sinker. Beyond the anti-capitalism and socialism utopia bs the talking point will be that the haves or the x% were able to amass wealth by not paying their fair share in taxes so we are entitled to recoup the money for the have nots through a wealth tax on Ira's, 401ks, net worth. It will start with billionaires so nobody will feel sorry for them then the goalposts will move further down.

The hard truth is that something has to be done to either fund spending or curb it drastically or both. Let's not act like we haven't had devastating crashes in our country's history.

We just don't seem to learn our lesson. We are a consumer based society so it's hard to get people who want to consume to vote on getting less resources to consume. So for the Rs tax cuts win the day and the Ds subsidies or services and the DSAs it's complete reallocation until some fantasy equilibrium is achieved. We are so screwed.....

 

[JackReacherDawg]

Fiscal conservatism has pretty much always meant keep spending and taxes low, not tax and spend. We have lots of things we can cut and clearly there is much more waste than even most cynical people believed. But we're not going to get to a reasonable spending level without cutting actual services.

Just welfare (SSDI, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, etc.), national defense, and interest on the national debt exceed revenues. We could stop everything else and still need to cut. We are collecting 67% more per person in the US in taxes than we did in 1980 in inflation adjusted dollars. So it's not that we have a revenue problem. We strictly have a spending problem.

Revenue is down. Not 67% up. Do you support bringing the revenue number up to the top of that historical chart, representing about 3% of GDP?

 

[HRMSU]

Running on deficit reduction can get you elected to office. Keeping the money flowing keeps you there.

I wish that was true but I think that horse left the barn with W

 

[DawgsNCowboys87]

Asking why about this admin is not going to yield meaningful results. Same reason we have the caveman begging congress for more billions to fight a war they didn’t vote for. Same reason we have tariff roulette with spins every 24 hours to determine what’s on and off, same reason we had caveman and Trump berating our European allies about not pitching in on an ill advised war that we started unilaterally and without any planning or concensus, same reason an 80 yo man acts like a petulant child more focused on themselves, loyalty and revenge than anything else, same reason a bunch of prolly who voted for “America First” are finding out that the Pentagon is spending all of our money on war mongering while also killing is with inflation, and directly driving up the price of gas, etc. The list is actually quite long and the answer can be found if you google “toxic narcissist”…

Can I like this infinite times?

 

[JackReacherDawg]

Wealth tax coming as soon as the DSA gets enough numbers and the yutes swallow the anti-capitalism line hook and sinker. Beyond the anti-capitalism and socialism utopia bs the talking point will be that the haves or the x% were able to amass wealth by not paying their fair share in taxes so we are entitled to recoup the money for the have nots through a wealth tax on Ira's, 401ks, net worth. It will start with billionaires so nobody will feel sorry for them then the goalposts will move further down.

The hard truth is that something has to be done to either fund spending or curb it drastically or both. Let's not act like we haven't had devastating crashes in our country's history.

We just don't seem to learn our lesson. We are a consumer based society so it's hard to get people who want to consume to vote on getting less resources to consume. So for the Rs tax cuts win the day and the Ds subsidies or services and the DSAs it's complete reallocation until some fantasy equilibrium is achieved. We are so screwed.....

The current fight is about billionaires using loopholes to pay far less of their income/wealth, on a percentage basis. We cant even agree on that. A propagandized half of this country fights tooth and nail to defend those loopholes.

 

[HRMSU]

So that's not a solution. That's a significant increase in marginal tax rates (moving the top marginal tax rate from ~38.45 to 45.55 (an ~18.5% increase), although arguably the Net investment income tax should be included, and it doesn't even solve the easier problem among entitlements.

People whose sole argument is that other people should pay more money are still in denial. There's not enough other people's money for us to take. We actually have to cut spending, at least in real terms.

It won't stop them from trying or actually achieving it. What both parties are doing right now is a long term national security issue.

 

[mstateglfr]

So that's not a solution. That's a significant increase in marginal tax rates (moving the top marginal tax rate from ~38.45 to 45.55 (an ~18.5% increase), although arguably the Net investment income tax should be included, and it doesn't even solve the easier problem among entitlements.

People whose sole argument is that other people should pay more money are still in denial. There's not enough other people's money for us to take. We actually have to cut spending, at least in real terms.

It is a realistic solution...in their eyes. It doesnt fully close the funding gap, but it is a way to significantly reduce it.
I am not arguing in favor of it, I am simply pointing out that it is a realistic solution people push for, even if you dislike it.

In their eyes, I bet they would argue that reducing benefit payouts, or extending the collection age to something older like 74, is not a solution.

This is obviously the issue in a nutshell-
- Your view(which is held by many) want to keep taxes on high income earners low and reduce spending to 'solve' things.
- The other view(which is held by many) want to increase the low taxation cap on those who can most afford it and keep spending the same to 'solve' things.

 

[thatsbaseball]

...which begs the question- why would a president have a plan for the new Fed chief to follow?

And it leaves NO QUESTION about Trump's lack of concerns for the people inflation effects the most .

 

[thatsbaseball]

Asking why about this admin is not going to yield meaningful results. Same reason we have the caveman begging congress for more billions to fight a war they didn’t vote for. Same reason we have tariff roulette with spins every 24 hours to determine what’s on and off, same reason we had caveman and Trump berating our European allies about not pitching in on an ill advised war that we started unilaterally and without any planning or concensus, same reason an 80 yo man acts like a petulant child more focused on themselves, loyalty and revenge than anything else, same reason a bunch of prolly who voted for “America First” are finding out that the Pentagon is spending all of our money on war mongering while also killing is with inflation, and directly driving up the price of gas, etc. The list is actually quite long and the answer can be found if you google “toxic narcissist”…

You left out Trump Media's new deal offering large banks and Wall Street Brokers access to 'about to be released" info on Truth Media for 100K /month allowing them to get a jump on the market .

https://www.ft.com/content/019ce313-00c5-4d7d-a26c-acd7250de84a?syn-25a6b1a6=1

 

[HRMSU]

The current fight is about billionaires using loopholes to pay far less of their income/wealth, on a percentage basis. We cant even agree on that. A propagandized half of this country fights tooth and nail to defend those loopholes.

Today it's the Billionaires because nobody can relate but the goalposts will move especially the more that non-capitalist spew their ignorant surface level arguments against capitalism.

 

[JackReacherDawg]

Today it's the Billionaires because nobody can relate but the goalposts will move especially the more that non-capitalist spew their ignorant surface level arguments against capitalism.

Well, assuming democracy works, less people will support it if it shifts that way.

Thats like saying i shouldn't support cops today because tomorrow the goalposts will move to police state tactics.

 

[HRMSU]

Well, assuming democracy works, less people will support it if it shifts that way.

Thats like saying i shouldn't support cops today because tomorrow the goalposts will move to police state tactics.

I'd say more like nsa, cia or fbi....we can all mostly relate to cops today so even though a certain side has pushed for defunding them it still looks and sounds silly. Going after the more unrelated agencies would be a better example but I understand your argument. It's called the slippery slope.

You could be right but in my lifetime when government finds a new revenue source spending tends to go in one direction and the demographics are what they are which will require cuts at some point or increased revenue hence moving the goalposts.

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

It is a realistic solution...in their eyes. It doesnt fully close the funding gap, but it is a way to significantly reduce it.
I am not arguing in favor of it, I am simply pointing out that it is a realistic solution people push for, even if you dislike it.

In their eyes, I bet they would argue that reducing benefit payouts, or extending the collection age to something older like 74, is not a solution.

This is obviously the issue in a nutshell-
- Your view(which is held by many) want to keep taxes on high income earners low and reduce spending to 'solve' things.
- The other view(which is held by many) want to increase the low taxation cap on those who can most afford it and keep spending the same to 'solve' things.

I think at some point it just comes crashing down and it’s a global problem (especially many EU countries) and not just the US. The debt can has been kicked down the road so far that there’s no turning back.

 

[mstateglfr]

I think at some point it just comes crashing down and it’s a global problem (especially many EU countries) and not just the US. The debt can has been kicked down the road so far that there’s no turning back.

Yeah, whenever the camel's back breaks, it will be a global issue for sure.
It may be China that breaks and the rest of the world is 17ed.
It may be the US that breaks and the rest of the world is 17ed.
It may be the EU that breaks and the rest of the world is 17ed.

The world is too financially and economically interconnected for such an issue to stay localized.

 

[johnson86-1]

View attachment 1370702

Revenue is down. Not 67% up. Do you support bringing the revenue number up to the top of that historical chart, representing about 3% of GDP?

Revenue is absolutely not down. Revenue as a percent of GDP is not the same thing as revenue.

If your model of government is to squeeze as much as possible from the populace, then getting it to that peak is reasonable. If your model of government is to fund necessary services, then trying to have maximize the amount of GDP captured by the government in taxes is not a reasonable measure. Getting to 17.4% of GDP would be fine. An good place to start would be to include social security payments as straight income. The people that are about to be collecting social security are as culpable as anybody for the state of our finances, and that would be a progressive tax. It'd only really matter for the retirees that are doing well. That seems like the minimum that should be done before asking younger and generally poorer people to pay more taxes to shield affluent retirees.

ETA: Other good places to raise revenue:
- Phase out exempt status of state and muni debt. That's virtually all rich people investing in those (and it would also be instructive to get a lot of politicians to discuss tax incidence).
- Phase out Salt deduction for personal and business income. Again, mostly rich people and business owners that pay that tax.
- Phase out Mortgage interest deduction. Again, mostly affluent people. The MID is actually fine policy wise but it wouldn't hurt too much to just get rid of it over time.
- Treat inheritance and gifts as income after the first $10M. Makes a lot more sense to hit people for receiving a lot of money than taxing people for dying with a lot of money. Anybody could avoid the estate tax by spreading their wealth around if they want too. Everybody can receive enough to be wealthy before having to pay taxes.

Those are all measures that are progressive (with the possible exception of the last one; would depend on how people responded) that match democrats claimed preference for progressive taxes that are also not terribly destructive and wouldn't have tons of deadweight loss. Of course democrats would fight like hell against all of them, with the possible exception of the last one.

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

Yeah, whenever the camel's back breaks, it will be a global issue for sure.
It may be China that breaks and the rest of the world is 17ed.
It may be the US that breaks and the rest of the world is 17ed.
It may be the EU that breaks and the rest of the world is 17ed.

The world is too financially and economically interconnected for such an issue to stay localized.

Even with all the debt we have it’s still feasible to keep raising the debt ceiling (which is just mind blowing) just because we own most of our own debt.