aubiefifty

we are talking about trump here as you like to throw out. so trump gets a pass then? is this what you are telling me?

enjoy!!!!

Donald Trump Built a National Debt So Big (Even Before the Pandemic) That It’ll Weigh Down the Economy for Years by Allan Sloan, ProPublica, and Cezary Podkul for ProPublica 14-18 minutes ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published. This story was co-published with The Washington Post. One of President Donald Trump’s lesser known but profoundly damaging legacies will be the explosive rise in the national debt that occurred on his watch. The financial burden that he’s inflicted on our government will wreak havoc for decades, saddling our kids and grandkids with debt. The national debt has risen by almost $7.8 trillion during Trump’s time in office. That’s nearly twice as much as what Americans owe on student loans, car loans, credit cards and every other type of debt other than mortgages, combined, according to data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. It amounts to about $23,500 in new federal debt for every person in the country. The growth in the annual deficit under Trump ranks as the third-biggest increase, relative to the size of the economy, of any U.S. presidential administration, according to a calculation by a leading Washington budget maven, Eugene Steuerle, co-founder of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. And unlike George W. Bush and Abraham Lincoln, who oversaw the larger relative increases in deficits, Trump did not launch two foreign conflicts or have to pay for a civil war. The National Debt Increased Under Trump Despite His Promise to Reduce It Daily total national debt from 2009 to present. Source: U.S. Treasury (Lena V. Groeger/ProPublica) Economists agree that we needed massive deficit spending during the COVID-19 crisis to ward off an economic cataclysm, but federal finances under Trump had become dire even before the pandemic. That happened even though the economy was booming and unemployment was at historically low levels. By the Trump administration’s own description, the pre-pandemic national debt level was already a “crisis” and a “grave threat.” The combination of Trump’s 2017 tax cut and the lack of any serious spending restraint helped both the deficit and the debt soar. So when the once-in-a-lifetime viral disaster slammed our country and we threw more than $3 trillion into COVID-19-related stimulus, there was no longer any margin for error. Our national debt has reached immense levels relative to our economy, nearly as high as it was at the end of World War II. But unlike 75 years ago, the massive financial overhang from Medicare and Social Security will make it dramatically more difficult to dig ourselves out of the debt ditch. The Debt to GDP Ratio Is the Highest It's Been Since World War II Federal debt held by the public as a percentage of gross domestic product since 1900. Source: Congressional Budget Office (Lena V. Groeger/ProPublica) Falling deeper into the red is the opposite of what Trump, the self-styled “King of Debt,” said would happen if he became president. In a March 31, 2016, interview with Bob Woodward and Robert Costa of The Washington Post, Trump said he could pay down the national debt, then about $19 trillion, “over a period of eight years” by renegotiating trade deals and spurring economic growth. After he took office, Trump predicted that economic growth created by the 2017 tax cut, combined with the proceeds from the tariffs he imposed on a wide range of goods from numerous countries, would help eliminate the budget deficit and let the U.S. begin to pay down its debt. On July 27, 2018, he told Sean Hannity of Fox News: “We have $21 trillion in debt. When this [the 2017 tax cut] really kicks in, we’ll start paying off that debt like it’s water.” Nine days later, he tweeted, “Because of Tariffs we will be able to start paying down large amounts of the $21 trillion in debt that has been accumulated, much by the Obama Administration.” That’s not how it played out. When Trump took office in January 2017, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office was projecting that federal budget deficits would be 2% to 3% of our gross domestic product during Trump’s term. Instead, the deficit reached nearly 4% of gross domestic product in 2018 and 4.6% in 2019. There were multiple culprits. Trump’s tax cuts, especially the sharp reduction in the corporate tax rate to 21% from 35%, took a big bite out of federal revenue. The CBO estimated in 2018 that the tax cut would increase deficits by about $1.9 trillion over 11 years. Meanwhile, Trump’s claim that increased revenue from the tariffs would help eliminate (or at least reduce) our national debt hasn’t panned out. In 2018, Trump’s administration began hiking tariffs on aluminum, steel and many other products, launching what became a global trade war with China, the European Union and other countries. The tariffs did bring in additional revenue. In fiscal 2019, they netted about $71 billion, up about $36 billion from President Barack Obama’s last year in office. But although $36 billion is a lot of money, it’s less than 1/750th of the national debt. That $36 billion could have covered a bit more than three weeks of interest on the national debt — that is, had Trump not unilaterally decided to send a chunk of the tariff revenue to farmers affected by his trade wars. Businesses that struggled as a result of the tariffs also paid fewer taxes, offsetting some of the increased tariff revenue. By early 2019, the national debt had climbed to $22 trillion. Trump’s budget proposal for 2020 called it a “grave threat to our economic and societal prosperity” and asserted that the U.S. was experiencing a “national debt crisis.” However, that same budget proposal included substantial growth in the national debt. By the end of 2019, the debt had risen to $23.2 trillion and more federal officials were sounding the alarm. “Not since World War II has the country seen deficits during times of low unemployment that are as large as those that we project — nor, in the past century, has it experienced large deficits for as long as we project,” Phillip Swagel, director of the CBO, said in January 2020. Weeks later, COVID-19 erupted and made the financial situation far worse. As of Dec. 31, 2020, the national debt had jumped to $27.75 trillion, up 39% from $19.95 trillion when Trump was sworn in. The government ended its 2020 fiscal year with the portion of the national debt owed to investors, the metric favored by the CBO, at around 100% of GDP. The CBO had predicted less than a year earlier that it would take until 2030 to reach that approximate level of debt. Including the trillions owed to various governmental trust funds, the total debt is now about 130% of GDP. Normally, this is where we’d give you Trump’s version of events. But we couldn’t get anyone to give us Trump’s side. Judd Deere, a White House spokesman, referred us to the Office of Management and Budget, which is a branch of the White House. OMB didn’t respond to our requests. The Treasury directed us to comments made by OMB director Russell Vought in October, in which he predicted that as the pandemic eases and economic growth rebounds, the “fiscal picture” will improve. The OMB blamed legislators for deficits when Trump submitted his proposed 2021 budget: “Unfortunately, the Congress continues to reject any efforts to restrain spending. Instead, they have greatly contributed to the continued ballooning of Federal debt and deficits, putting the Nation’s fiscal future at risk.” Still, the deficit growth under Trump has been historic. Steuerle, of the Tax Policy Center, has done a comparison of every American president using a metric called the “primary deficit.” It’s defined as the deficit minus interest costs, because interest is the only budget expense that presidents and Congress can’t control unless they want to do the unthinkable and default on the debt. Steuerle examined the records of 45 presidents to see how the primary deficit had shrunk or grown relative to the size of the economy between the first and final years of each president’s administration. Trump had the third-biggest primary deficit growth, 5.2% of GDP, behind only George W. Bush (11.7%) and Abraham Lincoln (9.4%). Bush, of course, not only passed a big tax cut, as Trump has, but also launched two wars, which greatly inflated the defense budget. Lincoln had to pay for the Civil War. By contrast, Trump’s wars have been almost entirely of the political variety. Our national debt is now at its highest level relative to our economy since the end of World War II. After the war ended, the extraordinary military expenses disappeared, a postwar recovery began and the debt began to fall rapidly relative to the size of the economy. But that’s not going to happen this time. When World War II ended 75 years ago, Social Security was in its infancy and Medicare didn’t exist. Today, many of our biggest and most rapidly growing expenses, especially Social Security and Medicare, are baked into the budget because of our nation’s aging population. These outlays are slated to rise sharply. Steuerle recently calculated that Social Security, health care and interest costs are projected to absorb 122% of the total growth in federal revenues from 2019 to 2030. What’s more, our investment in the future — things like research and development, education, infrastructure, workforce training and such — is declining as a proportion of the budget. OMB data shows that in 1970, mandatory spending (such as Social Security and Medicare, but not including interest on the debt) and investment each made up around 30% of total federal spending. But as of 2019, the most recent available year, mandatory spending had doubled to around 61% of total federal spending while investment fell by more than half, to around 12.5%. Mandatory Spending Outstrips Investment in the Future Mandatory and investment spending as a percentage of total U.S. government spending from 1970 to 2019. Mandatory (also known as nondiscretionary) spending includes programs such as Social Security and Medicare, while investment includes infrastructure, research and development, education and training. Source: Office of Management and Budget (Lena V. Groeger/ProPublica) Spending more and more on past promises and shrinking the proportion of spending for the future doesn’t bode well for our kids and grandkids. Had Trump done what he said he’d do and paid off part of the national debt before COVID-19 struck rather than adding significantly to the debt, the situation would be considerably less dire. And had Trump done a better job of coping with COVID-19, the economic and human costs would’ve been greatly reduced. In addition to forcing us to reduce the proportion of the budget spent on the future to help pay for the past, there’s a second reason that huge and growing budget deficits matter: interest costs. Bigger debt ultimately means bigger interest costs, even in an era when the Federal Reserve has forced down Treasury rates to ultralow levels. The government’s interest cost (including interest paid to government trust funds) was around $523 billion in the 2020 fiscal year. That outstrips all spending on education, employment training, research and social services, Treasury data shows. Interest costs are way below where they’d be if the Fed hadn’t forced rates down to try to stimulate the economy and mitigate the impact of the pandemic. One-year Treasury securities cost taxpayers a minuscule 0.10% in interest at year-end, down from 1.59% at the end of 2019. The 10-year Treasury rate was 0.93%, down from 1.92%. In late December, the Fed reported boosting its Treasury holdings by more than $2 trillion from a year earlier. The increase is primarily in longer-term securities. That has kept the federal government from having to raise trillions of dollars in the capital markets, and therefore has kept longer-term interest rates way below where they would otherwise be. But unless something changes, even the Fed’s promise to keep interest rates near current levels for several years won’t fend off future problems. Most of the government’s borrowing to fund pandemic relief has been shorter-term borrowing that will have to be refinanced in the coming years. If rates rise, so will the government’s interest expense. Even with rates where they are, interest on the debt is already going to be the fastest-growing budget category this decade, according to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, which tracks the issue. Annual net interest costs are projected to double in 10 years and grow so large beyond 2030 that interest will become a driving factor in annual deficit growth, according to Peterson estimates. Listen to what CBO Director Swagel had to say on the subject in a report to congressional Republicans in December: “Although the current low interest rates indicate that the debt is manageable for now and that the United States is not facing an immediate fiscal crisis, in which interest rates abruptly escalated or other disruptions occurred, the risk and potential budgetary consequences of such a crisis become greater over time.” Trump was asked about this risk during a virtual discussion with the Economic Club of New York last October. “If we have another stimulus bill out of Congress, are you worried that the entire amount of federal debt will be too large for us to pay off in a sensible way?” asked David Rubenstein, a private equity executive. Trump answered by falsely claiming that the U.S. was starting to pay off the national debt before the pandemic, and he claimed that future economic growth would let it do so. “I think you’re going to see tremendous growth, David, and the growth is going to get it done,” Trump said. Two months later, when Congress finally approved $900 billion of economic stimulus that is being financed with debt, Trump challenged Congress to spend — and borrow — even more. Then he went golfing. want to try that again broceph? your dishonesty is alarming................

yalls sacred saint alex jones said he wears white boots because he secretly pretends he wants to be a majorette.....snickers

no he knows how deep the bullsh*t piles up around repubs...............

i blame most of it on trump. he killed us but no one will admit it on the right. shame really...........

i believe you played football right? were you in the secondary? you are a legend on here and you should tell us story or two. like who was the meanest player at auburn? who was the meanest player. the stories would epic but at the end of the day this thread would be in honor of the mighty golf.

Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines Michael Hiltzik 8-10 minutes Fort Myers Beach, Fla., in the aftermath of Hurricane Ian. Federal assistance is coming despite the political posturing of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. (Douglas R. Clifford / Associated Press) In a world where Republicans set political standards, one could expect that migrants would be abandoned in remote places without hope of succor and that funding for infrastructure construction and disaster relief would be provided only to GOP-led communities. We don't live in that world because political and humanitarian counterbalances exist to GOP policies. "Republicans count on their enemies not to reciprocate their callous nihilism," observes political scientist Scott Lemieux of the University of Washington and the Lawyers, Guns & Money group blog. 'Washington at its worst.' Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis disdains Biden's COVID relief aid, before bragging about spending it The phenomenon has been vividly visible in recent days and weeks. Florida Republican politicians including Gov. Ron DeSantis and Sens. Rick Scott and Marco Rubio have pleaded for federal disaster assistance in the wake of Hurricane Ian, while evading questions about why they voted against similar aid for northeastern states hammered by Hurricane Sandy in 2012. (DeSantis voted against Sandy aid as a freshman congressman in 2013.) DeSantis and his fellow Republican governors Greg Abbott of Texas and Doug Ducey of Arizona undoubtedly know that the pain they're inflicting on defenseless migrants by flying and busing them to other states will be limited because humanitarian agencies will be mustered to care for the migrants — never mind that their jobs are complicated by the lack of notice from the DeSantis/Abbott/Ducey travel agencies. Politicians in red states that have enacted draconian antiabortion laws can persuade themselves that the burden on their female constituents is limited because patients seeking outlawed reproductive health services can find them in other states, such as California. Florida's desperate need for federal assistance in Ian's wake has put that state's congressional representatives on the spot, given their record of opposing federal disaster spending in the past, when it was needed by other regions. Rubio, who was among the 36 Republicans who voted against a $49-billion disaster relief package after Hurricane Sandy struck the Northeast in 2012 but appealed for Hurricane Ian aid, tried to sidestep accusations of hypocrisy by claiming that the Sandy package was "loaded up" with pork. Appearing on CNN, Rubio cited "a roof for a museum in Washington, D.C., and fisheries in Alaska that had nothing to do with disaster relief." To her credit, interviewer Dana Bash pointed out that the Washington roof had been damaged in the storm. She could have gone further: The appropriation was for the roofs of several Smithsonian Institution museums that were so damaged that the Smithsonian's priceless collections were threatened. The Alaska fisheries he mentioned, specifically for Chinook salmon, were among six coastal fisheries for which failures were declared in 2012 because of natural disasters, according to the Congressional Research Service. In other words, Rubio was just blowing smoke. Rubio and other Florida Republicans, including Scott and Rep. Matt Gaetz, paid lip service to the need for federal disaster aid for their state — but failed to lift a finger to pass a short-term funding bill that would provide $15 million in short-term financing for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Scott and Gaetz both voted against the measure when it came before their chambers on Sept. 29 and 30; Rubio didn't bother showing up for the roll call. The lawmakers were explicit about their opposition: To them, it was all about partisan politics. In a Sept. 19 letter, Gaetz and his House GOP colleagues pledged to vote against the stopgap spending bill because it would serve the Biden administration's agenda of "empowering authoritarian bureaucrats at agencies like the IRS and FBI ... imposing COVID-19 mandates that shut down schools and are forcing our military service members out of their jobs, and advancing self-destructive energy policies." The letter continued, "Any legislation that sets the stage for a 'lame duck' fight on government funding gives Democrats one final opportunity to pass that agenda." On the Senate side, Scott joined his GOP colleagues in pledging to vote against the stopgap spending plan "so that we do not enable the Biden administration's reckless progressive agenda." Republicans undoubtedly know that if they had the power to make these voting positions stick, it could have been disastrous for them. A government shutdown might have resulted, inflicting pain and suffering on households coast to coast. But there was no real risk of that because sufficient majorities existed in both houses to ensure that the measures would pass — the House passed the 2013 Sandy aid package by a 241-180 vote and the Senate by a 62-32 vote. The House voted 220 to 201 to pass the stopgap funding measure last month, with 10 Republicans in the majority, and the Senate voted 72 to 25, with 16 Republican senators in the majority and three Republicans, including Rubio, not voting. For the dissenting Republicans, these were free votes. They could swank about as warriors for fiscal responsibility, without the prospect that their posing would cause any adverse consequences they could be blamed for. It's proper to observe that the lawmakers who vote against funding bills like these aren't above taking credit for the money when it arrives in their states. DeSantis, for example, called the $1.9-trillion American Rescue Plan, a Biden administration pandemic relief package, "Washington at its worst" and blamed it for higher inflation. Out in the hustings, however, DeSantis bragged about a $400-million rural broadband project that he said would be funded from the state budget. The money, in fact, came from the American Rescue Plan. ("Some people have no shame," Biden riposted, without mentioning DeSantis.) As it happens, according to the Orlando Sentinel, federal funding has been crucial for the Florida state budget, helping to pay for such programs as "climate 'resiliency' against rising waters, road projects, broadband expansion, college training programs and tax cuts." DeSantis, who finds himself in the unfamiliar position of a supplicant for federal funding that he has disdained in the past, was remarkably ungracious about the federal response to Hurricane Ian. Appearing on Tucker Carlson's Fox News program on Thursday, DeSantis said he was "cautiously optimistic" that the Biden administration would come through with emergency aid. In fact, Biden had approved an emergency declaration for the state four days earlier. One could almost imagine DeSantis clenching his teeth at the necessity of being nice to Biden; he must have mistaken the current president for the former president, who was known to demand expressions of personal fealty from state and local officials in return for federal assistance. The truth is that the chance that Biden would withhold aid to the people of Florida because their governor chooses to portray the president as some sort of a socialist tyrant was zero. That's not Biden's style, nor is it the style of a functioning federal government. It's a fair bet, however, that DeSantis and his fellow Republicans will go right back to loudly disparaging Democrats as heedless spendthrifts as soon as their aid money is disbursed, counting on their constituents' short memories and gullibility. The victims of disasters, natural and political alike, are just lucky that responsible and humane officials and agencies will continue to clean up the mess left by the performative cruelty of political opportunists. They'll get disaster aid to where it's needed and humanitarian assistance to those cast adrift because that's how humanitarianism is defined. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

david i am pointing you as my new advisor...........

Trump wondered aloud to aides if Ghislaine Maxwell spoke to investigators about him after her arrest: book Trump wondered aloud to aides if Ghislaine Maxwell spoke to investigators about him after her arrest: book Cheryl Teh Tue, October 4, 2022 at 10:48 PM Donald Trump, Melania Trump, Jeffrey Epstein, and Ghislaine Maxwell seen together in February 2000.Davidoff Studios/Getty Images After Ghislaine Maxwell's arrest, Trump consulted his aides about whether she'd spoken about him. "She say anything about me?" Trump asked his aides, per NYT reporter Maggie Haberman's new book. Per Haberman, Trump was worried about an article in which he was named in connection with Maxwell. Former President Donald Trump wondered aloud to aides if socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, the girlfriend of Jeffrey Epstein, had said anything about him to investigators following her arrest. According to New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman's new book, "Confidence Man: The Making Of Donald Trump And The Breaking Of America," Trump asked his campaign staffers during an Oval Office meeting in July 2020 if they had read an article about Maxwell in the New York Post. - ADVERTISEMENT - "You see that article in the Post today that mentioned me?" Trump asked his staffers, per Haberman. Haberman wrote that Trump was referring to reports about Maxwell that name-dropped him, including an article by the Post's Page Six editor Emily Smith, which ran comments from Steve Hoffenberg, Epstein's former associate. Per the outlet, Hoffenberg had said that would be "naming some big names" in an effort to save herself after she was arrested in July 2020 and charged with six counts of grooming underage girls for sex with Epstein. "Ghislaine thought she was untouchable — that she'd be protected by the intelligence communities she and Jeffrey helped with information: the Israeli intelligence services, and Les Wexner, who has given millions to Israel; by Prince Andrew, President Clinton and even by President Trump, who was well-known to be an acquaintance of her and Epstein's," he said, per Smith's article, which was published on July 5, 2020. According to Haberman, being mentioned in the article was one of Trump's "worries." "He kept going, to silence. 'She say anything about me?'" Haberman wrote, describing the former president's reaction to the news. Maxwell was sentenced on June 28 to 20 years in prison for sexually abusing girls and trafficking them into having sex with Epstein. Trump told New York Magazine in 2002 that he had known Epstein for 15 years, and that he was a "terrific guy." "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life," Trump said at the time. In 2019, Trump told reporters that he and Epstein had a "falling out" and had not spoken in 15 years. As for Maxwell, Trump repeatedly wished her "well" as she waited to be tried for sex trafficking charges, saying he was not "looking for anything bad for her." "She's now in jail, so yeah, I wish her well," the president told Axios' Jonathan Swan. "I would wish you well. I would wish a lot of people well. Good luck. Let them prove somebody was guilty." Former Trump associate George Houraney told The New York Times in 2019 that the then-president had once partied with Epstein and around two dozen women at Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort. The event took place in 1992, per Houraney's account, and involved 28 girls being flown to Mar-a-Lago for a "calendar girl" competition. Epstein pleaded guilty to charges of solicitation of prostitution and procurement of minors for prostitution in Florida in 2007. He was known for having an elite circle of contacts that included presidents and Hollywood stars. Epstein died by apparent suicide in a Manhattan jail on August 10, 2020, while awaiting trial on charges of sex trafficking minors.

After conspiracy theorist Alex Jones repeatedly lied that one of America’s most deadly school shootings was staged, parents of one victim said they got letters threatening to desecrate their child’s grave. One person who sent a letter to Mark and Jackie Barden, whose 7-year-old son Daniel was killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, claimed to have urinated on the child’s grave. In another letter, someone threatened to dig up Daniel’s grave to prove he didn’t exist, his parents testified in Jones’ trial on Tuesday. Daniel did exist. He died along with 19 other children and six adults in the shooting and is now one of the subjects of a defamation trial against Jones, who used his platform Infowars to spread the sick lie that the kids had never died and that their parents were simply actors. Jones has already lost the case to a default judgment. A Connecticut jury will now decide how much he’ll have to pay to several Sandy Hook parents for his lies. Jacqueline Barden pauses as she testifies during Alex Jones' defamation damages trial at Connecticut Superior Court on Oct. 4, 2022. The Barden family lost their son Daniel in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. (Photo: Christian Abraham/Hearst Connecticut Media via AP) Jacqueline Barden pauses as she testifies during Alex Jones' defamation damages trial at Connecticut Superior Court on Oct. 4, 2022. The Barden family lost their son Daniel in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. (Photo: Christian Abraham/Hearst Connecticut Media via AP) Mark Barden said his son’s grave was “sacrosanct” to the family and that he couldn’t understand why anyone would tarnish it. “To hear people were desecrating it and urinating on it and threatening to dig it up, I don’t know how to articulate to you what that feels like, but that’s where we are,” he testified Tuesday. Jackie Barden described her son as “compassionate, thoughtful, and so aware of others” during her testimony. Mark Barden echoed the sentiment. “He had a deep, very involved sense of compassion. It was a beautiful thing to watch. His teachers would tell us Daniel was always the first one to help other students. He had this beautiful sense of empathy and concern and care for others.” After Daniel’s death, Mark Barden posted a video online of himself and his three kids playing “What A Wonderful World.” Daniel was on the drums and “kept really good time,” he testified. The video was soon flooded with comments threatening the family and calling them actors. “It interferes with your sleep, with your ability to process,” Barden testified about the abuse. “I’d go grocery shopping and spend the entire time looking at the faces of people in the room instead of focusing on grocery shopping with Jackie.” It’s a sentiment other Sandy Hook families have shared: always being on edge. As Mark Barden testified, a fire alarm went off in the courtroom and the courthouse was evacuated. Judge Barbara Bellis later said someone had pulled the alarm in the nearby parking garage, but it was not immediately clear who pulled it. In a trial that has entered its fourth week, multiple Sandy Hook families have testified, including one who said he was sent pictures of dead children by harassers who claimed his own child hadn’t died. In prior testimony, Jones took no responsibility for the pain he caused. “Is this a struggle session; are we in China?” Jones snapped at the plaintiffs’ attorney, Chris Mattei, at one point during the trial. “I’m done saying I’m sorry.”

i was agreeing with you in my own weird way. those oath keeper dudes basically said they would mow down any american that got in their way. i was trying to point this out to jj on top of what you said. sorry for any confusion..........

i will stand behind you on your right to your opinion hank. i am not anyone for the record but i am big on freedoms. right now is a terrible time for auburn fans. remember the movie i think called cold turkey where folks were trying to quit smoking and one dude is hurting so bad he kicks a dog or poodle or something. this is is where most auburn loving fans are.

this will be one of the few times i will not watch the game or will turn the channel if it gets bad. i am loyal and i love our kids but at 67 heartbreak takes a toll on me.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The nation's gross national debt has surpassed $31 trillion, according to a U.S. Treasury report released Tuesday that logs America's daily finances. Edging closer to the statutory ceiling of roughly $31.4 trillion — an artificial cap Congress placed on the U.S. government’s ability to borrow — the debt numbers hit an already tenuous economy facing high inflation, rising interest rates and a strong U.S. dollar. And while President Joe Biden has touted his administration's deficit reduction efforts this year and recently signed the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, which attempts to tame 40-year high price increases caused by a variety of economic factors, economists say the latest debt numbers are a cause for concern. Owen Zidar, a Princeton economist, said rising interest rates will exacerbate the nation's growing debt issues and make the debt itself more costly. The Federal Reserve has raised rates several times this year in an effort to combat inflation. Zidar said the debt “should encourage us to consider some tax policies that almost passed through the legislative process but didn't get enough support,” like imposing higher taxes on the wealthy and closing the carried interest loophole, which allows money managers to treat their income as capital gains. “I think the point here is if you weren't worried before about the debt before, you should be — and if you were worried before, you should be even more worried," Zidar said. The Congressional Budget Office earlier this year released a report on America's debt load, warning in its 30-year outlook that, if unaddressed, the debt will soon spiral upward to new highs that could ultimately imperil the U.S. economy. In its August Mid-Session Review, the administration forecasted that this year’s budget deficit will be nearly $400 billion lower than it estimated back in March, due in part to stronger than expected revenues, reduced spending, and an economy that has recovered all the jobs lost during the multi-year pandemic. In full, this year’s deficit will decline by $1.7 trillion, representing the single largest decline in the federal deficit in American history, the Office of Management and Budget said in August. Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said in an emailed statement Tuesday, “This is a new record no one should be proud of.” “In the past 18 months, we’ve witnessed inflation rise to a 40-year high, interest rates climbing in part to combat this inflation, and several budget-busting pieces of legislation and executive actions," MacGuineas said. “We are addicted to debt." A representative from the Treasury Department was not immediately available for comment. Sung Won Sohn, an economics professor at Loyola Marymount University, said “it took this nation 200 years to pile up its first trillion dollars in national debt, and since the pandemic we have been adding at the rate of 1 trillion nearly every quarter." Predicting high inflation for the “foreseeable future,” he said, “when you increase government spending and money supply, you will pay the price later."

the oath keepers talking point while on trial tells me it is probably both. they WANTED to take over and would have killed any in their way and then it would finally be done or words close to that.

and then the qb would act like a crybaby because he got his behind handed to him..........grins. oh well

first sometimes the church acts in a very ungodly way. i have an interest in it so i will call them out. screw those pastors screaming for libs to leave their church. screw that other little idiot as well wanting all the gays rounded up and executed. dude people have to call you out. have you forgotten W got a ton of our kids killed and maimed as well as destroying most of a country over a lie! you know how many women and children were killed? see you guys run with s*** and think it is real only to do serious harm and then you guys slink off and do not mention it anymore. and as far as your opinion if you post it on a political board you are fair game dude. i will tell you one last time. the church is dying. membership is falling and falling pretty fast. so i call out stupid crap that hurts the church because i have friends who love their church and god and it would hurt them. see you cannot get past your anger to see that. so you slime me and probably ichy as well. on here you act like one of the most unchrist like people i ever know. and i am not throwing insults but what i as well as others have observed. this is why i rebuked you. i thought maybe you might listen to him since you pretty much denie or ignore anything on the left and many times when it is something good.

i understand kirbster would leave when mama called but good lord think of all that talent we would have to work with! it would have been more than worth it.

the being thirty point dog to the dawgs just kills me too tho.

the betting line is basically we get stomped by thirty points. and this is our oldest rival. and adding insult is that coach on the other that is just killing it could have been our head coach and just imagine where we would be now? all because we refused to let him coach the bowl game for his current team at the time. i honestly believe we could have had another natty by now under him as well.

In SEC football, a coach who can be fired next September should be fired today | Opinion 5-7 minutes Wisconsin and Colorado fired their football coaches on Sunday. That makes five FBS coaches fired this season. In each of the past two seasons, three coaches were fired in September. That includes UConn — a basketball school — firing its football coach two games into last season. None of those September firings came from inside the SEC. Auburn’s Bryan Harsin entered the season on the hot seat, and the temperature hasn’t cooled after a 3-2 start. He’s 9-9 in his tenure, with no relief in sight. Harsin’s record likely will drop below .500 after the Tigers’ rivalry game at No. 2 Georgia on Saturday (2:30 p.m. CT, CBS). Follow every game: Live NCAA College Football Scores Still, for the sixth consecutive year no September firings originated from the nation’s most rugged conference. WE ARE OPEN:Nebraska, Wisconsin among most desirable head-coaching jobs available RE-RANK:Oklahoma, Texas A&M falling fast in latest NCAA Re-Rank 1-131 CALM DOWN:Ohio State, Georgia highlight overreactions for Week 5 An SEC school has not fired a coach in September since LSU fired Les Miles five games into the 2016 season. Don’t confuse this with SEC schools being patient and giving coaches a long leash. In fact, the reverse is true. SEC schools aren’t kicking the can down the road, giving an embattled coach one last chance, and then firing him the following September after the course doesn’t reverse. As former Florida athletic director Jeremy Foley once put it, “If something needs to be done eventually, it needs to be done immediately.” And that’s why Arkansas fired Chad Morris in November of his second season. And Mississippi State fired Joe Moorhead after his second season. And when Jeremy Pruitt coupled rule-breaking with mounting losses, Tennessee threw him overboard after his third season. Those three coaches, if retained into the next season, would have been ripe for September firings. Florida could have opted to give Dan Mullen another go. After all, he led the Gators to three consecutive New Year’s Six bowl bids before last year’s tailspin. But rather than stick with a coach who had fallen out of favor and was losing ground in recruiting, Florida ousted Mullen last November. In another conference, Mullen might have lasted another 10 months and become an early-season firing. Nebraska gave Scott Frost every opportunity to succeed but fired him on Sept. 11 after a 1-2 start to the season on the heels of going 3-9 in 2021. The September firing was proof that what needed to be done eventually was delayed, in Frost’s case. He should have been fired after last season. The same is true of Geoff Collins, fired by Georgia Tech on Sept. 26. Collins totaled nine victories in his first three seasons. At an SEC school, he almost surely wouldn’t have seen Year 4. But Georgia Tech kicked the can down a road that led to an inevitable destination. Southern Cal is the standard-bearer for early-season firings. It fired three consecutive coaches — Lane Kiffin, Steve Sarkisian and Clay Helton — before the team’s sixth game of a season. Kiffin and Helton were fired in September. Sarkisian lasted longer, to Oct. 12. A number of reasons are offered to explain the uptick in September firings. Some point to the December signing period, instituted in 2017, combined with the surge in transfers, creating a hot winter market for talent acquisition that resembles free agency. One theory is, the earlier in the season a school fires its coach, the sooner it can work on hiring the next one and try to salvage a signing class. That logic doesn’t add up, though. Until coaches start leaving their jobs for new ones midseason, athletic directors face limitations in speeding up the hiring clock. USC fired Helton on Sept. 13 last year. It hired Lincoln Riley on Nov. 28. The same outcome probably could have been achieved if Helton had been fired a month later. So, what else might explain the September firings? Bowl games don’t mean what they used to, so hanging on to a coach until the regular-season finale in hopes that he can steer a mediocre team into a bowl game is not much of a carrot. Plus, when Kiffin takes Ole Miss to the Sugar Bowl in his second season or Sam Pittman wins nine games at Arkansas in Year 2, other programs wonder: If those guys can succeed that quickly, why shouldn't our coach do the same? Also — and I think this is a big one — coaches’ paychecks continue to balloon. A $5 million annual salary barely positions a coach in the middle of the pack in the SEC. With bigger salaries come bigger buyouts, but surging media rights revenue allows schools to pay severance like it's Monopoly money. Coaches are paid too much to settle for mediocrity. That brings us back to Harsin. Auburn is paying a coach $5.1 million to win half the time — and even less frequently in conference games. Worse, no light awaits at the end of this tunnel. Is firing a coach before the end of his second season fair? Maybe not, but what’s fair isn’t always synonymous with the best course of action. Auburn is showing no momentum, on the field or in recruiting. AU could delay the inevitable, see if Harsin’s Tigers can squeak into a lackluster bowl and award Harsin a third season. And that likely would end with a September firing. That’s not the SEC’s style. While schools elsewhere drag their feet before issuing September pink slips, SEC schools act more swiftly and fire struggling coaches before they even reach the next season. To recraft Foley's words: The coach who would be fired in September should be fired today.

Auburn football: His firing seemingly imminent, Bryan Harsin was never given a chance Glenn Sattell 5-7 minutes Auburn didn’t lose a football game on Saturday for lack of effort. The effort was there. The Tigers fought to the end. And that can be attributed to coaching. It can also be attributed to coaching that Koy Moore threw a pass on what could and should have been a game-winning drive late in the game. It was a narcissistic coaching decision to basically allow Moore to give one final middle finger to the school he transferred from. But that’s another story for another time. The point is, Auburn head coach Bryan Harsin still has the eyes, ears and focus of this football team. That should account for something. It should be a sign that Harsin is doing what coaches do when their intention is to build a foundation. The Tigers didn’t lose on Saturday because Harsin has lost this team, or because the program is in shambles. They lost it because they don’t have the overall talent that LSU has. And that won’t change overnight, unless those big-money donors at Auburn who wanted Harsin gone from the start pony up the NIL money necessary to bring the next Cam Newton to the Plains. It’s legal now. That’s just where we are in college football today. Or maybe it has always been that way, I don’t know. I’ll have to ask Nick Saban at that other school down the road. He builds programs. He did it at LSU, and he rebuilt the program at his current location. But given today’s climate, given the rules in which Harsin is forced to toil under at Auburn, it’s a real possibility that Saban’s coaching career may not have made it out of LSU alive. His 1st team at LSU lost to UAB, at home, in his 4th game in Baton Rouge. LSU was 3-3 in his first 6 games on the bayou. By today’s standards, he would have already been on the hot seat. He finished that season 8-4, but he started the following year 2-2. He was 4-3 by the end of October. Given today’s climate, he may not have made it beyond that point. Too bad, isn’t it Auburn big-money donors, that LSU got behind its coach instead of setting up road blocks? Too bad, isn’t it, that LSU gave him 4 years to build a program into championship caliber? Too bad, isn’t it, that Alabama didn’t panic when Saban failed to win a championship in his 1st year there? To bad, isn’t it, that they didn’t fire Saban after going 6-6 his 1st year, including an unthinkable home loss to Louisiana-Monroe? Too bad, isn’t it, that they gave him 3 years in which to build the foundation for a championship program there, too? Too bad he was given the time and the backing to change the view of how Auburn and other football programs chase success. Of course, I’m not saying that Auburn is guaranteed a championship program if Harsin remains, and that ship has already sailed, it would appear. There are no such guarantees, but when Shug Jordan himself finishes 6th and 12th in the SEC in his first 2 years at Auburn but is given time to build a program — a program so successful over a 25-year career that it names the stadium after him — well, maybe those hyperactive big-money donors might want to hold their water just a little bit longer. I know that’s the environment we find ourselves in right now in college football, trying to catch lightning in a bottle rather than having the patience to build a lasting program. One false step and your coach is out the door. No room for error. Well, if that’s the case, my question has to be: Why are you paying tens of millions of dollars on long-term contracts to these coaches? I’ll tell you why: Because no self-respecting coach would take the job otherwise. And if that’s the case, what difference does it make who the coach is? Why not go cheap, get some GA and use the money instead to bring the best talent to campus? You’re laughing at that? So is Ed Orgeron as he sits on the beach with Candy, I think her name is, while lighting cigars with $100 bills. He caught lightning in a bottle. So did Gene Chizik. If that’s the aim, at least until Saban retires, then there are going to be many, many disappointing seasons. I mean, how many times can you win the lottery? Auburn won’t win a lot of games this season. It will be lucky to become bowl eligible. But you have to start somewhere. Until Auburn gets on the same page, from coaches to players to administration to big-money donors, there won’t be many successful seasons on the Plains. I’m certainly not saying that Harsin is the answer. What I am saying is that he has his football team playing as hard as it can. Some might even say it’s overachieving, given the talent level. And that’s a start. The next step in building a program is, of course, to bring in top talent. Harsin has yet to do that, and he won’t without unfractured support. Just ask Saban.

Auburn WR Landen King plans to redshirt, sit out remainder of year Published: Oct. 04, 2022, 8:09 p.m. 2 minutes Auburn tight end Luke Deal (86) hugs Auburn tight end Landen King (40) as King celebrates a one-handed touchdown reception against Alabama during the first overtime of an NCAA college football game, Saturday, Nov. 27, 2021, in Auburn, Ala. The touchdown sent the game to a second overtime, a game won in four overtimes by Alabama, 24-22. (AP Photo/Vasha Hunt)AP By Nubyjas Wilborn | nwilborn@al.com Promising second-year wide receiver Landen King will sit out for the remainder of the season; a source confirmed to AL.Com after reports surfaced from WarEagleTV.com on Tuesday evening. King converted to tight end after catching five passes for 59 yards as a freshman tight end. A highlight play for King was his touchdown catch in overtime of last year’s Iron Bowl. He came to Auburn as a 3-star tight-end recruit from Texas in the 2021 class. King played in three of Auburn’s first five games. His one catch was a 24-yarder against Penn State. The 6-5 220-pound wide receiver didn’t play in last week’s LSU loss or the season-opening win against Mercer at Jordan-Hare. Nubyjas Wilborn covers Auburn for Alabama Media Group.