Deficit escalates

[auburnatl1 6,020]

While both sides will inevitably blame the other (because that’s all they seem capable of doing),  bottom line is that the deficit is becoming imo the greatest threat to this country since the Soviet Union. Trumps tax cuts, Biden’s student forgiveness programs, ect. It is literal moronic insanity. Both parties struggle with understanding the strategic nature of a basic budget. And it’s 6th grade math. There is a disaster coming.

The state of Florida has it in their constitution that they cannot have a budget deficit, or the budget fails. It may be time to consider the same nationally since neither side has a clue. 

httpsw://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/2024-federal-budget-deficit-projection-rises-2-trillion/story?id=111254226

https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/national-debt/#:~:text=Maintaining the National Debt&text=How much the government pays,spending in fiscal year 2024.

[TexasTiger 14,069]

26 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Trumps tax cuts, Biden’s student forgiveness programs, ect. It is literal moronic insanity.

One has a huge impact, one incremental, but sure— let’s equate.

I agree with you on the larger issue, though. It’s a bigger cultural issue. The overwhelming majority of college football programs lose money. There’s no fiscal sanity there. There’s no fiscal sanity even for the 20-30 programs that don’t currently lose money. Even they are on an unsustainable path. High school sports are money drains, the way we approach them. Universities (the big ones) don’t look to how to live on a reasonable budget that keeps costs down. All the Presidents are building a “legacy” based on their personal “vision.” Americans complain about restaurant prices while getting on the waitlist. Buy more house than the need. More car than they need. Much less of this in Europe. Universities are far more economically ran. People live within their means. 

[creed 1,770]

I'm with you, and I have written my representative and senators with my expectations on deficit reductions and working within a defined budget. If they don't address this issue they will not earn my vote going forward. Their approach to the deficit may be to increase taxes and reduce spending, but that's what I would expect. However, the deficit is not front and center but should be, and just keeps getting kicked down the road. Down the road is too late.

Edited June 22 by creed

[TexasTiger 14,069]

Trump suggested declaring federal bankruptcy:

In an interview Thursday on CNBC, Donald Trump broke with tired clichés about the evils of federal debt accumulation. “I am the king of debt,” he said. “I love debt. I love playing with it.”

But he replaced fearmongering about debt with an even more alarming notion — a bankruptcy of the United States federal government that would incinerate the world economy.

“I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal,” . “And if the economy was good, it was good. So therefore, you can’t lose.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/06/donald-trump-on-us-debt.html

[auburnatl1 6,020]

12 minutes ago, creed said:

I'm with you, and I have written my representative and senators with my expectations on deficit reductions and working within a defined budget. If they don't address this issue they will not recieve my vote going forward. Their approach to the deficit may be to increase taxes and reducted spending, but that's what I would expect. However, the deficit is not front and center but should be, and just keeps getting kicked down the road. Down the road is too late.

We as a culture today struggle with prioritization of issues. Issues like pride month are interesting to argue about, but when the house is on fire, don’t fixate on saving the microwave. Put out the damn fire first.

And don’t start bickering about who’s worse or “equating” - dear lord, it doesn’t matter - first treat it like a clear and present danger, talk about it daily, and solve it. We have to have a mindset of “we can’t afford it”. It’s what adults do.

Edited June 22 by auburnatl1

[SaltyTiger 8,526]

https://federalbudgetinpictures.com/us-budget-vs-family-budget/

[TexasTiger 14,069]

19 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

And don’t start bickering about who’s worse or “equating” - dear lord, it doesn’t matter - first treat it like a clear and present danger, talk about it daily, and solve it. We have to have a mindset of “we can’t afford it”. It’s what adults do.

I agree with your basic premise. Again, you condescendingly dismiss any critique, no matter how small. When you’re running a deficit, any expense can be viewed as part of the problem. That doesn’t mean they have the same or even a remotely similar impact. If one truly wants to compare two problem makers, at least choose examples that best make the case. Surely Biden has bigger contributions to the deficit, doesn’t he? 
 

Republicans say “we can’t afford” Medicare, Obamacare, social security and increasingly, Ukraine aid. But we can afford tax cuts and defense increases and border walls. 
 

We have to have a frank conversation of what we most choose to pay for and how we choose to do it. “We can’t afford” framing is what we have now.

[auburnatl1 6,020]

13 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I agree with your basic premise. Again, you condescendingly dismiss any critique, no matter how small. When you’re running a deficit, any expense can be viewed as part of the problem. That doesn’t mean they have the same or even a remotely similar impact. If one truly wants to compare two problem makers, at least choose examples that best make the case. Surely Biden has bigger contributions to the deficit, doesn’t he? 
 

Republicans say “we can’t afford” Medicare, Obamacare, social security and increasingly, Ukraine aid. But we can afford tax cuts and defense increases and border walls. 
 

We have to have a frank conversation of what we most choose to pay for and how we choose to do it. “We can’t afford” framing is what we have now.

Apologies if you felt I condescended. My point is simply imo both sides are fully culpable. My hope is that this country normally unifies when there is a common existential threat. This has that reached level. But unlike other threats - this one is completely self inflicted. So the bad guy is… us.

It’s beyond a political problem, it’s  become a cultural laziness to not think about finances - even if it’s destroying us. Ie during the debates do you think there will be more questions about transgender or the deficit?

Edited June 22 by auburnatl1

[I_M4_AU 8,888]

Special interest groups are expensive.

[TexasTiger 14,069]

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Special interest groups are expensive.

So is being out of touch with reality on finances.

[I_M4_AU 8,888]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

So is being out of touch with reality on finances.

I agree, spending $50 trillion to get to net zero by 2050 is out of touch with reality.

[TexasTiger 14,069]

12 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Apologies if you felt I condescended. My point is simply imo both sides are fully culpable. My hope is that this country normally unifies when there is a common existential threat. This has that reached level. But unlike other threats - this one is completely self inflicted. So the bad guy is… us.

It’s beyond a political problem, it’s  become a cultural laziness to not think about finances - even if it’s destroying us. Ie during the debates do you think there will be more questions about transgender or the deficit?

Yes, neither party prioritizes the deficit. But trace the history of this— deficits mattered to both parties in the 90s. One of the many catastrophic consequences of GWB’s presidency was giving up on controlling deficits. Dubya blew it up, played the culture war and demonstrated deficit control was no longer a winning issue or worth the political capital.

By the time deficits were necessary to resolve a financial crisis, the problem was already becoming unfixable:

”Vice President Dick Cheney who told former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill that “deficits don’t matter” when the latter voiced concerns about the size of the federal bill. Cheney later fired O’Neill, presumably for thinking deficits actually mattered.

Still, Cheney was true to his word, as the White House of George W. Bush raised the federal deficit every year it was in office. When Bush started his presidency, the national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product hovered at 60%. By the time he exited, it was closer to 80%. Surely the first part of President Obama’s term will see that ratio only rise further, as the federal government fully deploys the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, the $200 billion Term Asset Backed Loan Securities Facility and the $500-$1 trillion Public-Private Investment Program, among other alphabet soup bailouts.”

https://www.forbes.com/2009/08/04/deficits-spending-gdp-intelligent-investing-cheney.html

[homersapien 12,172]

We have a political system that has sold out to "big money".  We shouldn't be surprised when we have governments that operate the same way.

 

Edited June 22 by homersapien

[aubaseball 2,788]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Republicans say “we can’t afford” Medicare, Obamacare, social security and increasingly, Ukraine aid. But we can afford tax cuts and defense increases and border walls. 

If you broke this statement down to its core, you would see that without border walls you are in fact giving away free money to individuals that have put nothing into the system using up social security and health care.   By just giving billions to Ukraine indefinitely, says we have way more discretionary money being taken in that really could be put back into the pockets of Americans (tax cuts).   If it’s really an issue (deficit), how come no one is doing anything about it?  On both sides!   

[TexasTiger 14,069]

31 minutes ago, aubaseball said:

If you broke this statement down to its core, you would see that without border walls you are in fact giving away free money to individuals that have put nothing into the system using up social security and health care.   By just giving billions to Ukraine indefinitely, says we have way more discretionary money being taken in that really could be put back into the pockets of Americans (tax cuts).   If it’s really an issue (deficit), how come no one is doing anything about it?  On both sides!   

Border walls in certain places make sense. The notion that a “big, beautiful wall” stretching the length of the border keeps immigrants out is foolish.

Tax cuts! You’re always for those, aren’t you?

[Leftfield 3,307]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

I agree, spending $50 trillion to get to net zero by 2050 is out of touch with reality.

I guess if you repeat a lie often enough, you'll start to believe it. Even if no one else does.

Well, except Cardin Drake.

[I_M4_AU 8,888]

6 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

I guess if you repeat a lie often enough, you'll start to believe it. Even if no one else does.

Well, except Cardin Drake.

How about this fact:  $7.5 billion has been allocated to build EV charging station nationwide and only 7 or 8 have been completed since 2021 of the 500,000 proposed.  And why the hold up?

But Biden may only have himself to blame.

Shortly after taking office, the president signed an executive order mandating that the beneficiaries of 40 percent of all federal climate and environmental programs should come from "underserved communities." The order also established the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council, which monitors agencies such as the Department of Transportation to ensure the "voices, perspectives, and lived realities of communities with environmental justice concerns are heard in the White House and reflected in federal policies, investments, and decisions."

In order to qualify for a grant, applicants must "demonstrate how meaningful public involvement, inclusive of disadvantaged communities, will occur throughout a project’s life cycle." What "public involvement" means is unclear. But the Department of Transportation notes it should involve "intentional outreach to underserved communities."

How these equity requirements are relevant to the construction of a single electric vehicle charging station is unclear, Meigs said. But all applicants for federal funding must in many cases submit reports that can total hundreds of pages about how they will pursue "equity" every step along the way.

This leads to delays and increases costs throughout the construction process, one senior Department of Transportation official told the Free Beacon. "Highly Qualified" applications, internal memos state, must "promote local inclusive economic development and entrepreneurship such as the use of minority-owned businesses."

https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/white-house-equity-requirements-holding-back-ev-charging-station-construction-internal-docs-show/

The article sums up the problem:

But the propensity for a local population to actually use an electric vehicle charging station appears to be an afterthought for the Biden administration, Meigs said. Instead the various regulations seem to serve more as a way to pay off Democratic constituencies—in the form of minority-focused contracting and hiring—at the expense of completing any projects in a timely or cost-effective manner.

"At a certain point you have to ask, is the point of these programs to reduce emissions or is the point to spread taxpayer money around and support groups that vote for the Democratic Party?"

Talk about special interest groups; its a twofer.  Greenies and DEI.

But that is just an opinion.

As to the *lie* of the cost of net zero, we have the Deputy Secretary of Energy about the $50 trillion and he would not answer the question of how much it would cost.  He also couldn’t or wouldn’t answer how much this cost would reduce the temps.  Senator Kennedy asked the questions and it is recorded and it is ridiculous.

[Leftfield 3,307]

5 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

How about this fact:  $7.5 billion has been allocated to build EV charging station nationwide and only 7 or 8 have been completed since 2021 of the 500,000 proposed.  And why the hold up?

But Biden may only have himself to blame.

Shortly after taking office, the president signed an executive order mandating that the beneficiaries of 40 percent of all federal climate and environmental programs should come from "underserved communities." The order also established the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council, which monitors agencies such as the Department of Transportation to ensure the "voices, perspectives, and lived realities of communities with environmental justice concerns are heard in the White House and reflected in federal policies, investments, and decisions."

In order to qualify for a grant, applicants must "demonstrate how meaningful public involvement, inclusive of disadvantaged communities, will occur throughout a project’s life cycle." What "public involvement" means is unclear. But the Department of Transportation notes it should involve "intentional outreach to underserved communities."

How these equity requirements are relevant to the construction of a single electric vehicle charging station is unclear, Meigs said. But all applicants for federal funding must in many cases submit reports that can total hundreds of pages about how they will pursue "equity" every step along the way.

This leads to delays and increases costs throughout the construction process, one senior Department of Transportation official told the Free Beacon. "Highly Qualified" applications, internal memos state, must "promote local inclusive economic development and entrepreneurship such as the use of minority-owned businesses."

https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/white-house-equity-requirements-holding-back-ev-charging-station-construction-internal-docs-show/

The article sums up the problem:

But the propensity for a local population to actually use an electric vehicle charging station appears to be an afterthought for the Biden administration, Meigs said. Instead the various regulations seem to serve more as a way to pay off Democratic constituencies—in the form of minority-focused contracting and hiring—at the expense of completing any projects in a timely or cost-effective manner.

"At a certain point you have to ask, is the point of these programs to reduce emissions or is the point to spread taxpayer money around and support groups that vote for the Democratic Party?"

Talk about special interest groups; its a twofer.  Greenies and DEI.

But that is just an opinion.

As to the *lie* of the cost of net zero, we have the Deputy Secretary of Energy about the $50 trillion and he would not answer the question of how much it would cost.  He also couldn’t or wouldn’t answer how much this cost would reduce the temps.  Senator Kennedy asked the questions and it is recorded and it is ridiculous.

Translation: "I keep getting called out on this same lie, so once again I'll throw out a lengthy diatribe about something else to distract everyone from the fact I can't be honest."

[I_M4_AU 8,888]

9 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Translation: "I keep getting called out on this same lie, so once again I'll throw out a lengthy diatribe about something else to distract everyone from the fact I can't be honest."

Tell me where I lied or Senator Kennedy lied:

 

This is the shorter version. 

[aubaseball 2,788]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Border walls in certain places make sense. The notion that a “big, beautiful wall” stretching the length of the border keeps immigrants out is foolish.

Tax cuts! You’re always for those, aren’t you?

If they help me, yes.  

[creed 1,770]

9 minutes ago, aubaseball said:

If they help me, yes.  

I think we're past the point of what helps "me". We need to be thinking about the next generations...the next aubaseball generations. That means paying off this debt that we have run up on our watch. Otherwise who knows what's in store for the following generations. The logical approach from my perspective is increased taxes coordinated with reduced federal spending.

Edited June 22 by creed

[AU9377 5,922]

5 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

While both sides will inevitably blame the other (because that’s all they seem capable of doing),  bottom line is that the deficit is becoming imo the greatest threat to this country since the Soviet Union. Trumps tax cuts, Biden’s student forgiveness programs, ect. It is literal moronic insanity. Both parties struggle with understanding the strategic nature of a basic budget. And it’s 6th grade math. There is a disaster coming.

The state of Florida has it in their constitution that they cannot have a budget deficit, or the budget fails. It may be time to consider the same nationally since neither side has a clue. 

httpsw://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/2024-federal-budget-deficit-projection-rises-2-trillion/story?id=111254226

https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/national-debt/#:~:text=Maintaining the National Debt&text=How much the government pays,spending in fiscal year 2024.

I understand your point and it is very valid.  However, we have to control spending across the board.  We pay $400 million per plane to build the F-22.  We pay whatever drug companies tell the government to pay when it comes to most medications that were developed by way of government grants.  When someone proposes that the government be allowed to negotiate prices, Congressmen rush to block the bill or cripple it in some way for special interests.  We subsidize industry left and right that needs no subsidy to make incredible profits.   I could go on and on and on. 

[TexasTiger 14,069]

26 minutes ago, aubaseball said:

If they help me, yes.  

Which is why we can’t solve our deficit issue.

[aubaseball 2,788]

16 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Which is why we can’t solve our deficit issue.

Yeah, that’s it.  Would you turn down a tax cut? Or how about your tax return? 
 

[TexasTiger 14,069]

16 minutes ago, aubaseball said:

Yeah, that’s it.  Would you turn down a tax cut? Or how about your tax return? 
 

I’d support a sensible tax structure that increased my taxes if it put us on a trajectory toward fiscal sanity. Taxes under Clinton didn’t harm the economy a bit.