Well... it's Trump... again. #47, here we go.

[Swammerdami]

Bbbill

... That's even worse than the hideous practice of suffixing every political scandal with "-gate", as though it were a meaningful suffix, and Nixon was busted after a break-in at the Water building....

Nitpick: Some connoisseurs refer to the scandal of 1972-74 as Watergate-gate.

 

[bilby]

Throughout history there have only been 3 ways that governments have ultimately dealt with excessive debt and these are ALL civilization killers. To wit:

1) Inflation
2) Confiscate wealth
3) Renounce the debt

During and after WWII, the Allied nations had enormous debt. Civilisation did not collapse, however; Rather, the economies of those nations boomed. That's because the addressed the debt by:

4) Progressive taxation of income, with top bracket marginal rates of 90-99%, for that portion of income that wildly exceeded median income levels (anyone could get rich, but it was very difficult indeed for an individual to get hyper-rich, buy a small-to-medium sized country rich, start a private space program rich).

The left/right divide on taxation is basically a disagreement over whether debt should be avoided via raising taxes to cover spending; Or by cutting spending to meet tax revenue.

Since Reagan, the right have added "...whilst also cutting taxes" to their side of the equation.

Observably, the left wing strategy works, and the initial right wing strategy doesn't.

The new right wing strategy really obviously doesn't, and it is bizarre that anyone ever expected that it might.

If you want a nice country, with nice stuff, then you want a fairly high and progressive income tax, to cover the costs of maintaining infrastructure; And you want some borrowing to cover new infrastructure (so that our grandchildren pay their share for it, and don't just get it as a gift - after all, our grandchildren will be far richer than their grandparents, if we don't fuck it all up).

A balanced budget isn't essential. But slashing taxes and then trying to keep the country staggering along on minimum possible spending is a recipe for disaster - because minimum spending is still quite a lot, if you don't want to live in a third-world shithole.

And while borrowing to invest in new infrastructure is good, borrowing just to keep things running is not.

Restore taxes to the reasonable levels of the early '80s, close a few loopholes, and fund the shit out of the IRS so that cheaters cannot prosper, and the budget will practically balance itself.

 

[bilby]

Bbbill

... That's even worse than the hideous practice of suffixing every political scandal with "-gate", as though it were a meaningful suffix, and Nixon was busted after a break-in at the Water building....

Nitpick: Some connoisseurs refer to the scandal of 1972-74 as Watergate-gate.

That's scandalous.

Indeed, it's Watergate-gate-gate.

 

[Elixir]

Indeed, it's Watergate-gate-gate.

And the scandal around the right’s attack on the founder of Microsoft is henceforth to be referenced as “Gates-gate-gate”.

 

[Swammerdami]

youtube 7fW0xQk-4KE

Before anyone wastes time clicking on the video that RVonse just posted, be aware that Victor Davis Hanson is a professor of military history who retired to become a racist right-wing political commentator. Although in the video he ostensibly claims (correctly!) that the Big Beautiful Bill will increase the deficit, in fact he is a staunch MAGAt Trump supporter, and praises Elon Musk and DOGE. He was a fan of the Cheney-Bush misadventure in Iraq, and so on. He obviously has a stable of right-wing supporters who have overwhelmed any objectivity in his Wikipedia article, but when I clicked Wiki still mentioned his column "Facing Facts about Race," about which Ta-Nehisi Paul Coates (a MacArthur Fellow) wrote "in any other context we would automatically recognize this 'talk' as stupid advice. ... you would not simply question [the writer'] sensitivity, but [his] mental faculties."

I stopped watching the video when he identifies Newt Gingrich as an important deficit reducer.

It is interesting that RVonse turned to this racist right-wing Trumplicker to finally learn that Trump was increasing the deficit rather than decreasing it. I wonder how RVonse connected to this oaf in the first place. @RVonse -- finding the occasional MAGAt who finally suspects that Trump hasn't a clue is NOT the efficient way to educate yourself. But help us out: Are you a Hanson subscriber? If not, what does your blindered news bubble look like to bring you such rubbish?

 

[laughing dog]

if our deficit can not be brought under control.

It never could. Not in just 4 years. You should have seen that.
Rump will say anything, with complete disregard for what the truth is.
He doesn't know or care what he is saying.
The Big Brother Bill doesn't even try to ballence the budget. It is not a start either, to fulfilling that promise.

Throughout history there have only been 3 ways that governments have ultimately dealt with excessive debt and these are ALL civilization killers. To wit:

1) Inflation
2) Confiscate wealth
3) Renounce the debt

Hyperbolic rhetoric is neither analysis nor indicative of knowledge.

I don’t know what you mean by “civilization killer”, but I do know from history, that debt renunciation by gov’ts, while leading to turmoil and economic damage over a some years, has typically had little noticeable economic effect after 7 years or so.

 

[ImGod]

Throughout history there have only been 3 ways that governments have ultimately dealt with excessive debt and these are ALL civilization killers. To wit:

1) Inflation
2) Confiscate wealth
3) Renounce the debt

During and after WWII, the Allied nations had enormous debt. Civilisation did not collapse, however; Rather, the economies of those nations boomed. That's because the addressed the debt by:

4) Progressive taxation of income, with top bracket marginal rates of 90-99%, for that portion of income that wildly exceeded median income levels (anyone could get rich, but it was very difficult indeed for an individual to get hyper-rich, buy a small-to-medium sized country rich, start a private space program rich).

The left/right divide on taxation is basically a disagreement over whether debt should be avoided via raising taxes to cover spending; Or by cutting spending to meet tax revenue.

Since Reagan, the right have added "...whilst also cutting taxes" to their side of the equation.

Observably, the left wing strategy works, and the initial right wing strategy doesn't.

The new right wing strategy really obviously doesn't, and it is bizarre that anyone ever expected that it might.

If you want a nice country, with nice stuff, then you want a fairly high and progressive income tax, to cover the costs of maintaining infrastructure; And you want some borrowing to cover new infrastructure (so that our grandchildren pay their share for it, and don't just get it as a gift - after all, our grandchildren will be far richer than their grandparents, if we don't fuck it all up).

A balanced budget isn't essential. But slashing taxes and then trying to keep the country staggering along on minimum possible spending is a recipe for disaster - because minimum spending is still quite a lot, if you don't want to live in a third-world shithole.

And while borrowing to invest in new infrastructure is good, borrowing just to keep things running is not.

Restore taxes to the reasonable levels of the early '80s, close a few loopholes, and fund the shit out of the IRS so that cheaters cannot prosper, and the budget will practically balance itself.

My state has a constitutional balanced budget requirement. This forces either cutting expenses or raising taxes or both. No possibility to kick the can down the road.

The federal constitution should have had that provision.

At least it forces a decision. Now we get tax and spend even more and cut taxes and spend too much. Everything from either side is a form of kick the can down the road strategy. The rich bankrolling the left politicians aren't going back to high taxes on the wealthy any more than the rich bankrolling the right politicians.

We normal people are stuck cheering on rich vs rich instead of focusing on rich versus poor. The next election will be two groups of billionares fighting over who gets control. Both parties will increase the deficit to enrich themselves and buy the votes needed to stay in power.

The left now bitching about raising deficits is laughable.

 

[RVonse]

Throughout history there have only been 3 ways that governments have ultimately dealt with excessive debt and these are ALL civilization killers. To wit:

1) Inflation
2) Confiscate wealth
3) Renounce the debt

During and after WWII, the Allied nations had enormous debt. Civilisation did not collapse, however; Rather, the economies of those nations boomed. That's because the addressed the debt by:

4) Progressive taxation of income, with top bracket marginal rates of 90-99%, for that portion of income that wildly exceeded median income levels (anyone could get rich, but it was very difficult indeed for an individual to get hyper-rich, buy a small-to-medium sized country rich, start a private space program rich).

The left/right divide on taxation is basically a disagreement over whether debt should be avoided via raising taxes to cover spending; Or by cutting spending to meet tax revenue.

Since Reagan, the right have added "...whilst also cutting taxes" to their side of the equation.

Observably, the left wing strategy works, and the initial right wing strategy doesn't.

The new right wing strategy really obviously doesn't, and it is bizarre that anyone ever expected that it might.

If you want a nice country, with nice stuff, then you want a fairly high and progressive income tax, to cover the costs of maintaining infrastructure; And you want some borrowing to cover new infrastructure (so that our grandchildren pay their share for it, and don't just get it as a gift - after all, our grandchildren will be far richer than their grandparents, if we don't fuck it all up).

A balanced budget isn't essential. But slashing taxes and then trying to keep the country staggering along on minimum possible spending is a recipe for disaster - because minimum spending is still quite a lot, if you don't want to live in a third-world shithole.

And while borrowing to invest in new infrastructure is good, borrowing just to keep things running is not.

Restore taxes to the reasonable levels of the early '80s, close a few loopholes, and fund the shit out of the IRS so that cheaters cannot prosper, and the budget will practically balance itself.

I agree in principal that progressive taxation is needed at this point no argument.

"Restore taxes to the reasonable levels of the early '80s, close a few loopholes, and fund the shit out of the IRS so that cheaters cannot prosper, and the budget will practically balance itself."

My only comment to is that you actually do lose productivity when you tax people more. But the present tax code is very unfair to the middle class and poor right now, no argument. And giving tax breaks to anyone wealthy right now during this budget crises is lunacy.

 

[RVonse]

youtube 7fW0xQk-4KE

Before anyone wastes time clicking on the video that RVonse just posted, be aware that Victor Davis Hanson is a professor of military history who retired to become a racist right-wing political commentator. Although in the video he ostensibly claims (correctly!) that the Big Beautiful Bill will increase the deficit, in fact he is a staunch MAGAt Trump supporter, and praises Elon Musk and DOGE. He was a fan of the Cheney-Bush misadventure in Iraq, and so on. He obviously has a stable of right-wing supporters who have overwhelmed any objectivity in his Wikipedia article, but when I clicked Wiki still mentioned his column "Facing Facts about Race," about which Ta-Nehisi Paul Coates (a MacArthur Fellow) wrote "in any other context we would automatically recognize this 'talk' as stupid advice. ... you would not simply question [the writer'] sensitivity, but [his] mental faculties."

I stopped watching the video when he identifies Newt Gingrich as an important deficit reducer.

It is interesting that RVonse turned to this racist right-wing Trumplicker to finally learn that Trump was increasing the deficit rather than decreasing it. I wonder how RVonse connected to this oaf in the first place. @RVonse -- finding the occasional MAGAt who finally suspects that Trump hasn't a clue is NOT the efficient way to educate yourself. But help us out: Are you a Hanson subscriber? If not, what does your blindered news bubble look like to bring you such rubbish?

I listened to Rachel Maddow in good faith when you provided it for me. And you would do well to listen to other opinions rather than censor their opinions.

 

[ZiprHead]

if our deficit can not be brought under control.

It never could. Not in just 4 years. You should have seen that.
Rump will say anything, with complete disregard for what the truth is.
He doesn't know or care what he is saying.
The Big Brother Bill doesn't even try to ballence the budget. It is not a start either, to fulfilling that promise.

Throughout history there have only been 3 ways that governments have ultimately dealt with excessive debt and these are ALL civilization killers. To wit:

1) Inflation
2) Confiscate wealth Taxation
3) Renounce the debt

Not growth, the way the Dems did it under Clinton?

By the way, I fixed the loaded words.

 

[RVonse]

if our deficit can not be brought under control.

It never could. Not in just 4 years. You should have seen that.
Rump will say anything, with complete disregard for what the truth is.
He doesn't know or care what he is saying.
The Big Brother Bill doesn't even try to ballence the budget. It is not a start either, to fulfilling that promise.

Throughout history there have only been 3 ways that governments have ultimately dealt with excessive debt and these are ALL civilization killers. To wit:

1) Inflation
2) Confiscate wealth
3) Renounce the debt

Hyperbolic rhetoric is neither analysis nor indicative of knowledge.

I don’t know what you mean by “civilization killer”, but I do know from history, that debt renunciation by gov’ts, while leading to turmoil and economic damage over a some years, has typically had little noticeable economic effect after 7 years or so.

Hyperinflation is a very real possibility when neither political party cares about excess debt. Historically, whenever a government creates massive debt and greatly increases the printing of currency, dramatic inflation, if not hyperinflation, results. Those businesses that are already on the ragged edge will find that when they’re paid, they cannot buy the same volume of goods for the same amount of dollars. This will be true throughout the entire food-supply chain. Of course, little inflationary blips are the norm in business, and businesses adjust to them. The problem comes when there are large increases that continue steadily over a period of months. When this occurs, you will expect a greater frequency of food-supply businesses going belly up.

A possible shortage of food brought on by hyperinflation is a "civilization killer". History is filled with examples of cultures that would endure most anything and still behave responsibly… but nothing causes greater, more unpredictable, or more violent behavior in a people than a lack of food. Take away their food and all bets are off.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

My state has a constitutional balanced budget requirement. This forces either cutting expenses or raising taxes or both. No possibility to kick the can down the road.

The federal constitution should have had that provision.

The Federal Government needs to be able to weather military engagements, economic calamities, among other things where having debt is an asset. How many corporations in the country have zero debt?

States are smaller and can't weather wars, depressions, etc... regardless.

At least it forces a decision. Now we get tax and spend even more and cut taxes and spend too much. Everything from either side is a form of kick the can down the road strategy. The rich bankrolling the left politicians aren't going back to high taxes on the wealthy any more than the rich bankrolling the right politicians.

We normal people are stuck cheering on rich vs rich instead of focusing on rich versus poor. The next election will be two groups of billionares fighting over who gets control. Both parties will increase the deficit to enrich themselves and buy the votes needed to stay in power.

The left now bitching about raising deficits is laughable.

Not bitching about the deficits, bitching about the deficit funded tax cut. Though I have been a proponent of we probably need to raise taxes for quite a while. States don't have money, Fed is starving itself these days. We are on an unsustainable path at this point regarding infrastructure.

 

[TomC]

Bbbill

... That's even worse than the hideous practice of suffixing every political scandal with "-gate", as though it were a meaningful suffix, and Nixon was busted after a break-in at the Water building....

Nitpick: Some connoisseurs refer to the scandal of 1972-74 as Watergate-gate.

That's scandalous.

Indeed, it's Watergate-gate-gate.

Suppose Nixon's minions had burglarized a building named "The Chappaquiddick".
And now political scandals were referred to as "XYZdick"? Wouldn't that be fun?

I really like reading and knowing about dicks.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Restore taxes to the reasonable levels of the early '80s, close a few loopholes, and fund the shit out of the IRS so that cheaters cannot prosper, and the budget will practically balance itself.

I agree in principal that progressive taxation is needed at this point no argument.

"Restore taxes to the reasonable levels of the early '80s, close a few loopholes, and fund the shit out of the IRS so that cheaters cannot prosper, and the budget will practically balance itself."

My only comment to is that you actually do lose productivity when you tax people more. But the present tax code is very unfair to the middle class and poor right now, no argument. And giving tax breaks to anyone wealthy right now during this budget crises is lunacy.

Jebus that is progressively passive aggressive. Taxing more loses productivity (not actually that true), but the current tax code is unfair. Make up your mind.

If we got rid of all discretionary spending, we'd have a balanced budget right now. That is how undertaxed we are! The GOP lied to America in the 80's, 90's, 00's. 10's, and 20's. That is over 40 years! The ultra-wealthy are buying up corporations thanks to all the money they saved since the 80s.

 

[Swammerdami]

youtube 7fW0xQk-4KE

Before anyone wastes time clicking on the video that RVonse just posted, be aware that Victor Davis Hanson is a professor of military history who retired to become a racist right-wing political commentator. Although in the video he ostensibly claims (correctly!) that the Big Beautiful Bill will increase the deficit, in fact he is a staunch MAGAt Trump supporter, and praises Elon Musk and DOGE. He was a fan of the Cheney-Bush misadventure in Iraq, and so on. He obviously has a stable of right-wing supporters who have overwhelmed any objectivity in his Wikipedia article, but when I clicked Wiki still mentioned his column "Facing Facts about Race," about which Ta-Nehisi Paul Coates (a MacArthur Fellow) wrote "in any other context we would automatically recognize this 'talk' as stupid advice. ... you would not simply question [the writer'] sensitivity, but [his] mental faculties."

I stopped watching the video when he identifies Newt Gingrich as an important deficit reducer.

It is interesting that RVonse turned to this racist right-wing Trumplicker to finally learn that Trump was increasing the deficit rather than decreasing it. I wonder how RVonse connected to this oaf in the first place. @RVonse -- finding the occasional MAGAt who finally suspects that Trump hasn't a clue is NOT the efficient way to educate yourself. But help us out: Are you a Hanson subscriber? If not, what does your blindered news bubble look like to bring you such rubbish?

I listened to Rachel Maddow in good faith when you provided it for me. And you would do well to listen to other opinions rather than censor their opinions.

I watched enough of that video to form a good opinion. The guy has no background in econ or anything like that; he's just a right-wing commentator. Is there some reason his comments are more useful than Jimmy Dore's? Is Dore also a racist, or does Hanson's racism make him more in tune with Trumpist thinking?

 

[laughing dog]

if our deficit can not be brought under control.

It never could. Not in just 4 years. You should have seen that.
Rump will say anything, with complete disregard for what the truth is.
He doesn't know or care what he is saying.
The Big Brother Bill doesn't even try to ballence the budget. It is not a start either, to fulfilling that promise.

Throughout history there have only been 3 ways that governments have ultimately dealt with excessive debt and these are ALL civilization killers. To wit:

1) Inflation
2) Confiscate wealth
3) Renounce the debt

Hyperbolic rhetoric is neither analysis nor indicative of knowledge.

I don’t know what you mean by “civilization killer”, but I do know from history, that debt renunciation by gov’ts, while leading to turmoil and economic damage over a some years, has typically had little noticeable economic effect after 7 years or so.

Hyperinflation is a very real possibility when neither political party cares about excess debt. Historically, whenever a government creates massive debt and greatly increases the printing of currency, dramatic inflation, if not hyperinflation, results. Those businesses that are already on the ragged edge will find that when they’re paid, they cannot buy the same volume of goods for the same amount of dollars. This will be true throughout the entire food-supply chain. Of course, little inflationary blips are the norm in business, and businesses adjust to them. The problem comes when there are large increases that continue steadily over a period of months. When this occurs, you will expect a greater frequency of food-supply businesses going belly up.

A possible shortage of food brought on by hyperinflation is a "civilization killer". History is filled with examples of cultures that would endure most anything and still behave responsibly… but nothing causes greater, more unpredictable, or more violent behavior in a people than a lack of food. Take away their food and all bets are off.

Fine. So it is your expectation that this bill if passed and signed into law by President Trump will eventually lead to a civilization- killing hyperinflation?

 

[Elixir]

Both parties will increase the deficit to enrich themselves and buy the votes needed to stay in power.

Yabut … democrats tend just slightly more toward buying votes by doing things that are intended to enrich their constituents, thereby earning their votes. Republican constituents don’t know or even want to know about stuff like the economy - they willingly accede to the superior wisdom of their billionaires, and consider themselves blessed to be ripped off by those billionaires so that their billionaires can own the libs. So they are genuinely enthusiastic about electing corrupt billionaires who will appoint more billionaires to rip them off. You can feed them anything, even:

“Tariffs are beautiful because other countries pay them and it will make us rich.”
- Demented Corrupt Republican

 

[ImGod]

I'm not a pie in the sky type that the current Dems have a solution. We should have at least 4 parties that make groups work together. The Dems sold unions down the river and sit behind tech billionares who wish the US dissolved so they could take over, the Rs wouldn't know a balanced budget if it slapped their ass in a sex dungon.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm not a pie in the sky type that the current Dems have a solution. We should have at least 4 parties that make groups work together. The Dems sold unions down the river and sit behind tech billionares who wish the US dissolved so they could take over, the Rs wouldn't know a balanced budget if it slapped their ass in a sex dungon.

We are currently in a Hobson's Choice. It is the Democrats or the party that has allowed RFK Jr to cancel working on a vaccine against bird flu because it was being developed using mRNA... and his keystone MAHA report, referred to studies that never existed.

Am I happy with the Dems? No. It ain't perfect, it ain't good... it is the only feasible option. The current party in power is exported people without Due Process to a prison in El Salvador. <--- that shit should be hyperbole! The Democrats won't usher in utopia. They can't solve all the problems. But they can be trusted not to sell out American interests for a jumbo jet!

 

[bilby]

My state has a constitutional balanced budget requirement. This forces either cutting expenses or raising taxes or both. No possibility to kick the can down the road.

The federal constitution should have had that provision.

No, it shouldn't.

Federal budgeting is not like state budgeting, unless your state uses its own currency, and denominates its debts in that currency.

And borrowing for long lived infrastructure is the sensible thing to do, even for non-currency issuers.

When you are looking for a place to live, do you insist on a balanced budget, wherein your annual expenses may not exceed your annual income, or do you borrow money to buy a home, on the grounds that you will be living in the place for decades, so you may as well pay for it for decades?

Renting a place balances your budget. Buying a place doesn't. Is the prudent and wise option to rent until you have sufficient savings to buy a home (if you ever do)?

Debt and borrowing are useful tools that, used wisely, act as a wealth and prosperity multiplier. Refusing to allow their use at all, just because they can also be dangerous if used for frivolous expenditure which doesn't provide long-term benefits, is just daft.

As I said: You want some borrowing to cover new infrastructure, so that our grandchildren pay their share for it, and don't just get it as a gift - after all, our grandchildren will be far richer than their grandparents, if we don't fuck it all up.