The economy

[hawkeyetraveler]

Let me stop you there. It did what it was intended to do, and it never had altruistic intentions.

Semantics that I could have worded better. I meant having an effort to cut costs is the right intention. You are 100% right that this effort was never intended to be that.

It was meant to be something very different where efficacy was never the goal. Political one-upsmanship was more the vibe of DOGE.

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

All the whining about "DOGE wasn't done the right way" is gross.

There is no right way to cut government cheese. No one will be happy to lose “free” things. NO ONE! When you cut your way, all the other people are going to scream and pitch a fit you didn't do it the right way. And nothing will get done.

That's the whole point of DOGE, you take away the free cheese. And looked what happened!

Oh well. Too late now. The Hyperscalers sold their soul to the AI Devil and we all will have to live with the consequences. It's too late to go back, the contracts have been signed. The choice was made when DOGE was rebuffed.

The constitution is pretty damn clear about who controls the purse strings. It has to go through Congress.

And yes that is slow. And yes maybe our constitution needs to have a relook on this and other fronts. But changing that would seem to go against the originalism espoused by the GOP. So like it or not you work through Congress or nothing gets done.

The bull in a china shop approach was doomed to failure from the start and it seems clear the objective was never really serious. If anything it was Trump giving Musk a governmental platform as payment for Musk’s money during the election.

 

[Billanole.]

The constitution is pretty damn clear about who controls the purse strings. It has to go through Congress.

And yes that is slow. And yes maybe our constitution needs to have a relook on this and other fronts. But changing that would seem to go against the originalism espoused by the GOP. So like it or not you work through Congress or nothing gets done.

The bull in a china shop approach was doomed to failure from the start and it seems clear the objective was never really serious. If anything it was Trump giving Musk a gocernmental platform as payment for Musk’s money during the election.

And, perhaps, access to a lot of data/personal info from agency data bases.

 

[bdgan]

and yet we keep spending, spending, spending

It seems as if only people on this board are concerned about the debt, not one in Congress appears at all concerned, and the Trump administration puts drunken sailors to shame...

I disagree partly about your comment that the Trump administration puts drunken sailors to shame.

1. I agree if you're talking about spending on the war
2. I only partly agree if you're talking about spending for ICE. I'm all for spending the close the border and for getting rid of criminals. I wouldn't spend as much on the rest. I'd stop work permits for illegals and make sure they can't collect benefits. If they can't work or collect benefits they'll self deport.

Other than that spending has been curtailed. Roughly 250k government jobs have been eliminated and work requirements have limited the growth of social welfare payments.

Federal Spending by year:
2022 $6.1 trillion
2023 $6.4 trillion
2024 $6.8 trillion
2025 $7.0 trillion

Interest on debt by year:
2022 $474b (average interest rate was 1.5%)
2023 $658b
2024 $882b
2025 $952b

You can't blame growing interest on the debt on the current administration. You have to blame it on all of the administrations over many decades. Interest payments are going to keep rising because the debt is rising AND because current interest rates are ~4% compared to only 1.5% in 2022. Things just get worse as the old debt matures and rolls over at much higher rates. I don't know what either party can do to stop that. $40 trillion x 4% = $1.6 trillion per year in interest expense and that's if we don't increase the debt.

 

[baltimorened]

I disagree partly about your comment that the Trump administration puts drunken sailors to shame.

1. I agree if you're talking about spending on the war
2. I only partly agree if you're talking about spending for ICE. I'm all for spending the close the border and for getting rid of criminals. I wouldn't spend as much on the rest. I'd stop work permits for illegals and make sure they can't collect benefits. If they can't work or collect benefits they'll self deport.

Other than that spending has been curtailed. Roughly 250k government jobs have been eliminated and work requirements have limited the growth of social welfare payments.

Federal Spending by year:
2022 $6.1 trillionfirst I agree 100
2023 $6.4 trillion
2024 $6.8 trillion
2025 $7.0 trillion

Interest on debt by year:
2022 $474b (average interest rate was 1.5%)
2023 $658b
2024 $882b
2025 $952b

You can't blame growing interest on the debt on the current administration. You have to blame it on all of the administrations over many decades. Interest payments are going to keep rising because the debt is rising AND because current interest rates are ~4% compared to only 1.5% in 2022. Things just get worse as the old debt matures and rolls over at much higher rates. I don't know what either party can do to stop that. $40 trillion x 4% = $1.6 trillion per year in interest expense and that's if we don't increase the debt.

first I agree 100% that the debt belongs to a long list of presidents.

When I said Trump spends...I was referring to war, ballroom, arch, etc. If you're concerned about deficits, you cut back on theings that are not necessities, IMO. Until someone actually determines that the debt is unsustainable and comes up with a solid plan, they have this tendency to look past the deficit and just spend on nice to haves instead of must haves. The thing about AC carriers for example, what we have on the drawing board seems to work just fine. Why spend $$$billions when what you have isn't broken/

 

[bdgan]

I still believe DOGE did more harm than good.

I'm not sure why you fell that way other than your hate for Trump. My opinion:

• I think it was perfectly fine for the DOGE team to come in and try to identify waste. I don't care that they weren't elected.
• It was probably illegal for the administration to make cuts on things that were approved by congress. That's why a lot of the intended cuts never happened. I think that's also what ticked Musk off. Perhaps the attempt is why you call Trump corrupt.
• I think the administration should have focused on making the cuts on the next budget (or continuing resolution) rather than interfere with what was already approved by congress.

That said what's the harm? Do you believe that we cut things that shouldn't have been cut or Is it that you believe it alienated the two sides even further?

 

[The_Joker13_rivals]

I'm not sure why you fell that way other than your hate for Trump. My opinion:

• I think it was perfectly fine for the DOGE team to come in and try to identify waste. I don't care that they weren't elected.
• It was probably illegal for the administration to make cuts on things that were approved by congress. That's why a lot of the intended cuts never happened. I think that's also what ticked Musk off. Perhaps the attempt is why you call Trump corrupt.
• I think the administration should have focused on making the cuts on the next budget (or continuing resolution) rather than interfere with what was already approved by congress.

That said what's the harm? Do you believe that we cut things that shouldn't have been cut or Is it that you believe it alienated the two sides even further?

It was political grandstanding to sway dumbasses such as yourself to vote for dipshit.

 

[bdgan]

first I agree 100% that the debt belongs to a long list of presidents.

When I said Trump spends...I was referring to war, ballroom, arch, etc. If you're concerned about deficits, you cut back on theings that are not necessities, IMO. Until someone actually determines that the debt is unsustainable and comes up with a solid plan, they have this tendency to look past the deficit and just spend on nice to haves instead of must haves. The thing about AC carriers for example, what we have on the drawing board seems to work just fine. Why spend $$$billions when what you have isn't broken/

I'm not defending or criticizing the ballroom or arch but minimal money has been spent on those things so far. My point is that Social Security & Medicare go up every year due to baby boomers retiring and cost of living adjustments. Interest on the debt has more than doubled because interest rates are higher. If you exclude those things Trump hasn't increased "discretionary" spending. The extra money for ICE/border is more than offset by cuts in other areas.

Federal deficit by year post covid:

Biden 2022 1.375 trillion
Biden 2023 1,695 trillion
Biden 2024 1,833 trillion
Trump 2025 1.850 trillion (increase is much less than the increase in entitlements and interest)

I never expected Trump to lower the deficit and I certainly wouldn't call him a fiscal hawk. I just wouldn't accuse him of spending like a drunken sailor up until now. He actually reigned in some spending in 2025 other than what was on autopilot.

P.S. The Iran war is going to make 2026 worse and I'm critical of that. I definitely don't approve of Trump's plan to spend $1.5 on defense next year.

P.S.S. I don't think either party has the courage to materially reduce government spending. That's why we need a balanced budget amendment.

 

[fatpiggy]

I'm not defending or criticizing the ballroom or arch but minimal money has been spent on those things so far. My point is that Social Security & Medicare go up every year due to baby boomers retiring and cost of living adjustments. Interest on the debt has more than doubled because interest rates are higher. If you exclude those things Trump hasn't increased "discretionary" spending. The extra money for ICE/border is more than offset by cuts in other areas.

Federal deficit by year post covid:

Biden 2022 1.375 trillion
Biden 2023 1,695 trillion
Biden 2024 1,833 trillion
Trump 2025 1.850 trillion (increase is much less than the increase in entitlements and interest)

I never expected Trump to lower the deficit and I certainly wouldn't call him a fiscal hawk. I just wouldn't accuse him of spending like a drunken sailor up until now. He actually reigned in some spending in 2025 other than what was on autopilot.

P.S. The Iran war is going to make 2026 worse and I'm critical of that. I definitely don't approve of Trump's plan to spend $1.5 on defense next year.

P.S.S. I don't think either party has the courage to materially reduce government spending. That's why we need a balanced budget amendment.

Realistically a balanced budget amendment would require a change to the constitution? That requires a really high bar, a bar that I dont think can realistically be reached.

If there was no appetite for DOGE from either party, not sure where the votes for a constitutional amendment would come from?


Growth is the only way out in my eyes.

I 100% agree with you, just don’t think it has a chance e realistically.

 

[bdgan]

The constitution is pretty damn clear about who controls the purse strings. It has to go through Congress.

And yes that is slow. And yes maybe our constitution needs to have a relook on this and other fronts. But changing that would seem to go against the originalism espoused by the GOP. So like it or not you work through Congress or nothing gets done.

The bull in a china shop approach was doomed to failure from the start and it seems clear the objective was never really serious. If anything it was Trump giving Musk a governmental platform as payment for Musk’s money during the election.

Yes the purse strings are controlled by congress.

Working through congress is hopeless unless we have a balanced budget amendment. Politicians can't remain in office if they eliminate or scale back programs. Like Reagan said a government program is the closest thing on earth to everlasting life.

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

Yes the purse strings are controlled by congress.

Working through congress is hopeless unless we have a balanced budget amendment. Politicians can't remain in office if they eliminate or scale back programs. Like Reagan said a government program is the closest thing on earth to everlasting life.

We definitely need a balanced budget amendment, or at least some legal mechanism that makes it very difficult to have anything other than a balanced budget. I’m no legal scholar but I imagine there could be a law passed that would achieve the same thing without requiring a constitutional change.

 

[baltimorened]

We definitely need a balanced budget amendment, or at least some legal mechanism that makes it very difficult to have anything other than a balanced budget. I’m no legal scholar but I imagine there could be a law passed that would achieve the same thing without requiring a constitutional change.

Not a final solution, obviously, but we're still living under the pay as you go law....we just ignore it. for example, if Trump wants $1billion for his ballroom he'd have to identify where in the approved budget he'd cut an equal amount. When Democrats wanted to extend the ACA subsidies, they would have had to identify an equal amount from the budget to cut.

Like I said, not a total solution but at least a way to instill some discipline. The first step would be a realistic budget..and we haven't been able to master that yet either.

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

Not a final solution, obviously, but we're still living under the pay as you go law....we just ignore it. for example, if Trump wants $1billion for his ballroom he'd have to identify where in the approved budget he'd cut an equal amount. When Democrats wanted to extend the ACA subsidies, they would have had to identify an equal amount from the budget to cut.

Like I said, not a total solution but at least a way to instill some discipline. The first step would be a realistic budget..and we haven't been able to master that yet either.

Yeah I wonder if there is something we can do that has more teeth to it. Hell, make it a felony for the president to not follow the law or something. Make it require 2/3rds majority to pass a budget that is not balanced. Really whatever legal maneuver that is constitutional that helps get this crap under control.

 

[The_Joker13_rivals]

Nothing is gonna change until we hit the wall and a catastrophic world changing event occurs regarding the debt and our governments reckless spending. We as a people have become soft and are unwilling to embrace real change. We’re a selfish species and if we’re honest with ourselves we don’t have it in us to make any kind of sacrifice unless forced to. Enjoy the ride till it ends boyz.

 

[baltimorened]

Yeah I wonder if there is something we can do that has more teeth to it. Hell, make it a felony for the president to not follow the law or something. Make it require 2/3rds majority to pass a budget that is not balanced. Really whatever legal maneuver that is constitutional that helps get this crap under control.

Congress could pass a new law, creating a deficit reducing task force, equally staffed by Dems, republicans and independents to develop a plan that would require a 2/3 majority to overrule. You'd have to set some paremters to make sure what the group came up with is feasible, so they don't come out with something like "balance the budget in 1 year"

We've had some good, even realistic groups do this before - gramm, rudman,hollings in the 80's: Simpson Bowles in the 2000, s - but they've largely been ignored after brief tries.

But all the posts are right...we need to do something and everybody's ox is going to be gored.

 

[Dadar]

Nothing is gonna change until we hit the wall and a catastrophic world changing event occurs regarding the debt and our governments reckless spending. We as a people have become soft and are unwilling to embrace real change. We’re a selfish species and if we’re honest with ourselves we don’t have it in us to make any kind of sacrifice unless forced to. Enjoy the ride till it ends boyz.

The debt rhetoric has been playing for so many years now we just keep playing the same song.

The proverb "Nero fiddled while Rome burns" means to focus on unimportant, trivial, or self-indulgent activities while a major crisis, disaster, or emergency is happening around you. It describes severe irresponsibility, a lack of leadership, and a total disregard for urgent duties

 

[Dadar]

The flash point can come from China. China is fast developing a financial system that will continue to challenge the US. In my opinion, this is where we are most vulnerable. The flow of gold is saying a lot. We could not have done more over a period of accelerating time to encourage any nation outside of the US other than maybe Israel to lose faith in being tethered to the USD for trade.

Do a search for US and China currency war

 

[Rifler]

No argument that the deficit is rising but you can't look at it month to month because the timing of both revenues and expenditures isn't even throughout the year.

I think it's pretty ugly from all angles...

 

[Rifler]

Congress could pass a new law, creating a deficit reducing task force, equally staffed by Dems, republicans and independents to develop a plan that would require a 2/3 majority to overrule. You'd have to set some paremters to make sure what the group came up with is feasible, so they don't come out with something like "balance the budget in 1 year"

We've had some good, even realistic groups do this before - gramm, rudman,hollings in the 80's: Simpson Bowles in the 2000, s - but they've largely been ignored after brief tries.

But all the posts are right...we need to do something and everybody's ox is going to be gored.

Way too much work,... Simply agree on the percentage required and then impose that cut across the board,... That way, when the bitching starts everyone will be on equal ground.

 

[bdgan]

I think it's pretty ugly from all angles...

Absolutely but it's not up 77%. That's ridiculous.

 

[dpic73]

 

[baltimorened]

If the point is that Trump and the Republicans have not lived up to either promises or expectations, this is overkill. I think that other than maybe 5 - 6 posters everyoine has already come to that conclusion.

 

[Palmerhawk]

In the good old days we lowered the deficit when the economy was solid, then when the calamities occurred like the 2008 financial collapse and covid in 2020 we did short- term stimulus injections .
Obama and GOP Congress brought down deficit from 2 trillion in Bush's last year to 400 billion by 2015. Then 550 billion in 2016.
Then trump came in and it went up every year til covid when it zoomed to over 2 trillion in 2020 and 2021...then started coming down til trump again.
Trump was handed a solid economy...both times
Should have been reducing deficit 5 of 6 years of Trump's run. But tax cuts, war and defense costs,and wasteful spending in BBB...ICE with 170 billion? No.

The GOP is the irresponsible party on deficits

 

[bdgan]

In the good old days we lowered the deficit when the economy was solid, then when the calamities occurred like the 2008 financial collapse and covid in 2020 we did short- term stimulus injections .
Obama and GOP Congress brought down deficit from 2 trillion in Bush's last year to 400 billion by 2015. Then 550 billion in 2016.
Then trump came in and it went up every year til covid when it zoomed to over 2 trillion in 2020 and 2021...then started coming down til trump again.
Trump was handed a solid economy...both times
Should have been reducing deficit 5 of 6 years of Trump's run. But tax cuts, war and defense costs,and wasteful spending in BBB...ICE with 170 billion? No.

The GOP is the irresponsible party on deficits

Nice liberal math.

The deficit went from $459 billion in 2008 (Bush's last year) to $1,413 billion in 2009 (Obama's first year). You're blaming Bush for Obama spending money to bail out FNMA & others. Then you give Obama credit for that finally dissipating. The federal deficit was Then you do it again by blaming Trump for the impact of Covid.

I'm going to give you a chance to show your objectivity. Tell us what you would do to materially reduce the deficit. You don't have to balance the budget, just cut the deficit from $2 trillion to $1 trillion. I'll wait.

 

[Palmerhawk]

Bush came to pelosi in fall of 2008 asking Congress to bail out banks...and Obama voted for it as well as mccain.
Fiscal year ends Sept 30 2009...that spending is approved by bush.
I made it clear that blowing out deficit should be reserved for black swan events like 2008( economy lost 880k jobs in jan of 2009.) and covid
Covid spending is on both presidents and not all bad.
It's the increase in normal economy that really bothers me.

My solution:
1. Cut spending on SS,and Medicare with means testing. Raise the age to qualify for SS..phase it in. Do a donut deal with SS tax hitting above 400k
With current cap intact.

2. Raise tax revenue by going back to 39% on top bracket and tax cap gains above 1 million at regular rates.Fully fund irs to increase enforcement that increases revenue significantly.Also tax the private equity guys income at regular rates.

3.Reduce defense spending. We have seen how giant weapons programs are albatrosses around our necks while new-age drones costing 2k are ruling. Their is fat in defense.

Those are the big drivers of deficit.
Reversing Citizens United is key to draining the swamp which is the only way to cut spending.
Lockheed will buy pols to vote for their big programs otherwise ....and every other vendor as well.
It's a start. No vanity projects like ballroom, paying and then gifting giant planes to sitting president...stuff like that.

There would be pain but gotta start somewhere

 

[bdgan]

Bush came to pelosi in fall of 2008 asking Congress to bail out banks...and Obama voted for it as well as mccain.
Fiscal year ends Sept 30 2009...that spending is approved by bush.
I made it clear that blowing out deficit should be reserved for black swan events like 2008( economy lost 880k jobs in jan of 2009.) and covid
Covid spending is on both presidents and not all bad.
It's the increase in normal economy that really bothers me.

My solution:
1. Cut spending on SS,and Medicare with means testing. Raise the age to qualify for SS..phase it in. Do a donut deal with SS tax hitting above 400k
With current cap intact.

2. Raise tax revenue by going back to 39% on top bracket and tax cap gains above 1 million at regular rates.Fully fund irs to increase enforcement that increases revenue significantly.Also tax the private equity guys income at regular rates.

3.Reduce defense spending. We have seen how giant weapons programs are albatrosses around our necks while new-age drones costing 2k are ruling. Their is fat in defense.

Those are the big drivers of deficit.
Reversing Citizens United is key to draining the swamp which is the only way to cut spending.
Lockheed will buy pols to vote for their big programs otherwise ....and every other vendor as well.
It's a start. No vanity projects like ballroom, paying and then gifting giant planes to sitting president...stuff like that.

There would be pain but gotta start somewhere

Here's some perspective on the bank bailouts. Federal spending went from$2,982 billion in 2008 to $3,517 billion in 2029. That's a 17% increase in one year. Logic says spending should have come down to $2.9 trillion or maybe a little more for inflation after the financial disaster. Guess what? It never did. That level of spending became permanent. Guess what else? The government actually made a profit when banks paid off their loans + interest.

WRT your solutions:

1. I don't like means testing for SS because it penalizes people for saving and investing. I also don't like raising the retirement age because it's physically difficult for people in some lines of work to keep working. That said I understand that the fix will require some people to make sacrifices that IMO are unfair. I've suggested a 50% tax on earnings above the cap ($200k) where employers and employees both pay 3.1% instead of 6.2%. It's not a complete removal of the cap and it might raise more than $100b/yr in revenues. I don't understand your "donut deal".
2. I support raising the top rate back to 39.6%. That would generate about $20 billion/yr. IMO republicans were dumb for reducing the top rate because it opened to door to dishonest statements that the tax cuts were for the rich. The fact is the biggest percentage tax cuts went to low/mid income people. I don't support raising the capital gains tax which is already 24% + state tax. It sounds like you want to tax unrealized gains on the wealthy. A lot of that would be a tax on inflation. Let's say you bought a home 20 years ago for $200k and now it's worth $600k. Should you pay tax even though you still live in that house? I think you're talking about carried interest being taxed at ordinary rates. I'm OK with that but the CBO says that would only raise $1 billion/yr. I don't have an opinion on IRS staffing.
3. I think defense is the number one responsibility of the federal government. Defense spending as a percent of GDP was ~6% in the 1980s and now it's "only" a little over 3% of GDP. But just like SS we have to make some difficult decisions. I've long supported Trump when he complains that our NATO "allies" aren't carrying their weight. I don't think the U.S. can continue being the defender of the world. I'd probably freeze spending at current levels and force the Pentagon to make cuts in other areas to pay for the new things they want.

Unfortunately your suggestions excluding SS would only cut the deficit by ~5%. Biden had a budget proposal that would raise $50 billion per year. That's enough revenue to reduce the deficit by 2.5% but he wanted to spend twice that on additional social welfare programs.

I disagree with democrats who complain about Citizen's United. They want to stop corporations from donating to republicans but they don't want stop money from places like unions. IMO we should stop all of it. We need campaign finance reform to get all special interests out of politics.

The ballroom and airplane might be a bad look to some but they're insignificant.

I appreciate your suggestions even though I don't agree with all of them. My frustration is usually with people who say things like let the government run things and reverse everything that Trump does. That's just lazy and unproductive.

 

[Dadar]

From 8:30 treasury announcement this AM.

Gold and silver are happy

Leading into 20 duration auction at 1 PM ET

"Just two weeks after releasing its planned schedule for buybacks this quarter, the Treasury Department on Wednesday said it’s “increasing, by at least double, the size of liquidity support buyback operations” for securities dated from the 10-year to the 30-year sector. The message drove yields on the longest bond lower by nearly 10 basis points to 5.18%, pulling them back from their highest levels since 2007. The dollar fell by the most in three months."

 

[baltimorened]

Bush came to pelosi in fall of 2008 asking Congress to bail out banks...and Obama voted for it as well as mccain.
Fiscal year ends Sept 30 2009...that spending is approved by bush.
I made it clear that blowing out deficit should be reserved for black swan events like 2008( economy lost 880k jobs in jan of 2009.) and covid
Covid spending is on both presidents and not all bad.
It's the increase in normal economy that really bothers me.

My solution:
1. Cut spending on SS,and Medicare with means testing. Raise the age to qualify for SS..phase it in. Do a donut deal with SS tax hitting above 400k
With current cap intact.

2. Raise tax revenue by going back to 39% on top bracket and tax cap gains above 1 million at regular rates.Fully fund irs to increase enforcement that increases revenue significantly.Also tax the private equity guys income at regular rates.

3.Reduce defense spending. We have seen how giant weapons programs are albatrosses around our necks while new-age drones costing 2k are ruling. Their is fat in defense.

Those are the big drivers of deficit.
Reversing Citizens United is key to draining the swamp which is the only way to cut spending.
Lockheed will buy pols to vote for their big programs otherwise ....and every other vendor as well.
It's a start. No vanity projects like ballroom, paying and then gifting giant planes to sitting president...stuff like that.

There would be pain but gotta start somewhere

why do you single out old people for your social program cuts..?? Don't you love you mother, father and grandparents....remember the ads about rolling granny over the ledge??

 

[Palmerhawk]

Here's some perspective on the bank bailouts. Federal spending went from$2,982 billion in 2008 to $3,517 billion in 2029. That's a 17% increase in one year. Logic says spending should have come down to $2.9 trillion or maybe a little more for inflation after the financial disaster. Guess what? It never did. That level of spending became permanent. Guess what else? The government actually made a profit when banks paid off their loans + interest.

WRT your solutions:

1. I don't like means testing for SS because it penalizes people for saving and investing. I also don't like raising the retirement age because it's physically difficult for people in some lines of work to keep working. That said I understand that the fix will require some people to make sacrifices that IMO are unfair. I've suggested a 50% tax on earnings above the cap ($200k) where employers and employees both pay 3.1% instead of 6.2%. It's not a complete removal of the cap and it might raise more than $100b/yr in revenues. I don't understand your "donut deal".
2. I support raising the top rate back to 39.6%. That would generate about $20 billion/yr. IMO republicans were dumb for reducing the top rate because it opened to door to dishonest statements that the tax cuts were for the rich. The fact is the biggest percentage tax cuts went to low/mid income people. I don't support raising the capital gains tax which is already 24% + state tax. It sounds like you want to tax unrealized gains on the wealthy. A lot of that would be a tax on inflation. Let's say you bought a home 20 years ago for $200k and now it's worth $600k. Should you pay tax even though you still live in that house? I think you're talking about carried interest being taxed at ordinary rates. I'm OK with that but the CBO says that would only raise $1 billion/yr. I don't have an opinion on IRS staffing.
3. I think defense is the number one responsibility of the federal government. Defense spending as a percent of GDP was ~6% in the 1980s and now it's "only" a little over 3% of GDP. But just like SS we have to make some difficult decisions. I've long supported Trump when he complains that our NATO "allies" aren't carrying their weight. I don't think the U.S. can continue being the defender of the world. I'd probably freeze spending at current levels and force the Pentagon to make cuts in other areas to pay for the new things they want.

Unfortunately your suggestions excluding SS would only cut the deficit by ~5%. Biden had a budget proposal that would raise $50 billion per year. That's enough revenue to reduce the deficit by 2.5% but he wanted to spend twice that on additional social welfare programs.

I disagree with democrats who complain about Citizen's United. They want to stop corporations from donating to republicans but they don't want stop money from places like unions. IMO we should stop all of it. We need campaign finance reform to get all special interests out of politics.

The ballroom and airplane might be a bad look to some but they're insignificant.

I appreciate your suggestions even though I don't agree with all of them. My frustration is usually with people who say things like let the government run things and reverse everything that Trump does. That's just lazy and unproductive.

I am a fiscal conservative but culturally neutral dem.
I did not suggest taxing unrealized cap gains ..not realistic.
Carried interest was term I meant on p/e comment.

We know what the bulk of govt spending is driven by:
SS
Medicare/ medicaid
Defense
Interest.

At least we can agree on that.
You're right that it is gonna be painful to make a significant dent in the deficit.
I also agree that campaign finance reform is needed and all PACs: union or Tesla/ amazon financed should go away.

Problem with democracy is pols promising the world to get elected.
It would take a benevolent dictator to actually make progress

 

[Dadar]

From 8:30 treasury announcement this AM.

Gold and silver are happy

Leading into 20 duration auction at 1 PM ET

"Just two weeks after releasing its planned schedule for buybacks this quarter, the Treasury Department on Wednesday said it’s “increasing, by at least double, the size of liquidity support buyback operations” for securities dated from the 10-year to the 30-year sector. The message drove yields on the longest bond lower by nearly 10 basis points to 5.18%, pulling them back from their highest levels since 2007. The dollar fell by the most in three months."

Bitcoin up 6% also getting fuel from treasury action

 

[Dadar]

The equity markets are like Jekyll and Hyde depending on whether or not the mechanical bid from index buying with payroll contributions is running

 

[Dadar]

If ai eliminates a lot of jobs what is the effect?

 

[fatpiggy]

If ai eliminates a lot of jobs what is the effect?

New ones are created. Story as old as time.

 

[fatpiggy]

Wal mart going to make the libs mad by keeping prices low. Also raised their outlook for the rest of the year.

Weird. I was just assured by the Fagnarshortcocks of the world that the economy was struggling.

 

[fatpiggy]

Wal mart also ended all DEI.

As I have been saying , DEI is just racism against white people. and then, all the sudden they started making more money. Coincidence I’m sure