2024

[MDlaxfan76]

Unless what I read recently is incorrect is our debt now increases at 1 trillion dollars every 100 days. So that 600 billion for maintenance is growing by leaps and bounds. I guess DC is so preoccupied with the southern border that no one is paying attention to the nations credit card.

incorrect, go back to google.
We've had bursts of increases in debt, but the general pace is not nearly that fast.
Biggest issue is the huge reduction in tax rates. Hard for me to say that, but it's the reality.

No the debt is increasing at almost 1 trillion every 100 days. Not that it matters to you debt deniers.

you have a cite for that?

I meant to post the link I read. I googled it and it came up on several different sites. I have no doubt that data is correct. Try and Google 1 trillion every 100 days.

Ahh, yes, the last 2 100 days.

Huge infrastructure investments are counting toward that. But assets are growing apace, I'd argue.

I love how everyone wants to compare the national debt with their personal household finances, but they leave off their home value from the analysis or the value of college education to earning levels, or grad eduction, or technical education...they all want to look only at short term cash flow.

The old rule of thumb for a home mortgage was 30% of income as the debt level you should aim for, though today most new homebuyers have to exceed 40% to get into a home the size that their parents had afforded at 30%. And home ownership has been a quite reliable way to accumulate value, given enough time and good upkeep.

We regularly commit capital (and taking on debt) to pay for education, as lifetime earrings are predictably higher with such education (assuming it's not squandered by laziness).

Most Americans that are fiscally responsible are well aware of their personal financial situation and do their very best to live within their means. They also understand that their government could care less how they mismanage the taxpayers money. I can't recall the last politician that publicly declared we should have a balanced budget. The cost to maintain this debt is closing ever more rapidly towards a trillion dollars a year. There is a cabal of economic gurus who think our national debt is no big deal. There are also a lot of Americans who think that cavalier attitude is or will soon be disaterous. Time will tell if it is possible to spend your way out of the deep hole that has been dug.

You can't remember? They do it every year. A balanced budget amendment was introduced just last year in the Senate.

It's posturing, because these R's don't want anyone to know how disastrous that would be for their states and districts...they know it's not going anywhere, so they posture. They think their voters are stupid and they're largely right.

"live within their means" is relative to the means. If one's income is stable or declining and there's zero expectation of improvement, then fixing one's costs below that expected amount, with whatever reserves saved for a rainy day is prudent.

If the expectation is that one's income is growing, indeed with investment and time can grow a lot, then the 'within their means' is for a growth in spending. The more that's spent on productive investment rather than just out the door and into a dump yard, the better, but it's essential to that growth engine to continue to invest in oneself and one's family.

Our national debt load is well less than the typical family's mortgage or rent as a percentage of national income.

Which doesn't mean we should simply spend more, but actual productive investments make a ton of sense...and oh btw, so does taxing the richest corporations and individuals. Wouldn't take a lot to produce more government "revenue".

As a fiscal conservative (not hawk) I simply want the spending to be smart and productive.

[cradleandshoot]

Unless what I read recently is incorrect is our debt now increases at 1 trillion dollars every 100 days. So that 600 billion for maintenance is growing by leaps and bounds. I guess DC is so preoccupied with the southern border that no one is paying attention to the nations credit card.

incorrect, go back to google.
We've had bursts of increases in debt, but the general pace is not nearly that fast.
Biggest issue is the huge reduction in tax rates. Hard for me to say that, but it's the reality.

No the debt is increasing at almost 1 trillion every 100 days. Not that it matters to you debt deniers.

you have a cite for that?

I meant to post the link I read. I googled it and it came up on several different sites. I have no doubt that data is correct. Try and Google 1 trillion every 100 days.

Ahh, yes, the last 2 100 days.

Huge infrastructure investments are counting toward that. But assets are growing apace, I'd argue.

I love how everyone wants to compare the national debt with their personal household finances, but they leave off their home value from the analysis or the value of college education to earning levels, or grad eduction, or technical education...they all want to look only at short term cash flow.

The old rule of thumb for a home mortgage was 30% of income as the debt level you should aim for, though today most new homebuyers have to exceed 40% to get into a home the size that their parents had afforded at 30%. And home ownership has been a quite reliable way to accumulate value, given enough time and good upkeep.

We regularly commit capital (and taking on debt) to pay for education, as lifetime earrings are predictably higher with such education (assuming it's not squandered by laziness).

Most Americans that are fiscally responsible are well aware of their personal financial situation and do their very best to live within their means. They also understand that their government could care less how they mismanage the taxpayers money. I can't recall the last politician that publicly declared we should have a balanced budget. The cost to maintain this debt is closing ever more rapidly towards a trillion dollars a year. There is a cabal of economic gurus who think our national debt is no big deal. There are also a lot of Americans who think that cavalier attitude is or will soon be disaterous. Time will tell if it is possible to spend your way out of the deep hole that has been dug.

You can't remember? They do it every year. A balanced budget amendment was introduced just last year in the Senate.

It's posturing, because these R's don't want anyone to know how disastrous that would be for their states and districts...they know it's not going anywhere, so they posture. They think their voters are stupid and they're largely right.

"live within their means" is relative to the means. If one's income is stable or declining and there's zero expectation of improvement, then fixing one's costs below that expected amount, with whatever reserves saved for a rainy day is prudent.

If the expectation is that one's income is growing, indeed with investment and time can grow a lot, then the 'within their means' is for a growth in spending. The more that's spent on productive investment rather than just out the door and into a dump yard, the better, but it's essential to that growth engine to continue to invest in oneself and one's family.

Our national debt load is well less than the typical family's mortgage or rent as a percentage of national income.

Which doesn't mean we should simply spend more, but actual productive investments make a ton of sense...and oh btw, so does taxing the richest corporations and individuals. Wouldn't take a lot to produce more government "revenue".

As a fiscal conservative (not hawk) I simply want the spending to be smart and productive.

Talk is cheap MD, talk is very cheap. Any discussion about trying to cut spending brings out the special interests groups screaming at the top of their lungs. The only fair way to accomplish a reduction in spending has to be across the board. They can start with the defense budget and work their way down. Everybody in government is demanding the taxpayers pay more so they can accomplish less. You confuse me, I thought that along time ago in a galaxy far far away you use to be a fiscal conservative? That ship has apparently sailed never to be seen again. Your a fiscal conservative who is willing to look at 35 trillion dollar debt and not have a problem with that.
Perhaps the Republicans should nominate you as the keynote speaker at the RNC so you can explain your rationale to all mainstream Republicans. I'm sure they would all be happy to hear you splain it. What was I thinking? I was thinking that a self confessed fiscal conservative republican actually had a belief system that revolved around being fiscally conservative. Wrongo on my end.

[SCLaxAttack]

Unless what I read recently is incorrect is our debt now increases at 1 trillion dollars every 100 days. So that 600 billion for maintenance is growing by leaps and bounds. I guess DC is so preoccupied with the southern border that no one is paying attention to the nations credit card.

incorrect, go back to google.
We've had bursts of increases in debt, but the general pace is not nearly that fast.
Biggest issue is the huge reduction in tax rates. Hard for me to say that, but it's the reality.

No the debt is increasing at almost 1 trillion every 100 days. Not that it matters to you debt deniers.

you have a cite for that?

I meant to post the link I read. I googled it and it came up on several different sites. I have no doubt that data is correct. Try and Google 1 trillion every 100 days.

Ahh, yes, the last 2 100 days.

Huge infrastructure investments are counting toward that. But assets are growing apace, I'd argue.

I love how everyone wants to compare the national debt with their personal household finances, but they leave off their home value from the analysis or the value of college education to earning levels, or grad eduction, or technical education...they all want to look only at short term cash flow.

The old rule of thumb for a home mortgage was 30% of income as the debt level you should aim for, though today most new homebuyers have to exceed 40% to get into a home the size that their parents had afforded at 30%. And home ownership has been a quite reliable way to accumulate value, given enough time and good upkeep.

We regularly commit capital (and taking on debt) to pay for education, as lifetime earrings are predictably higher with such education (assuming it's not squandered by laziness).

Most Americans that are fiscally responsible are well aware of their personal financial situation and do their very best to live within their means. They also understand that their government could care less how they mismanage the taxpayers money. I can't recall the last politician that publicly declared we should have a balanced budget. The cost to maintain this debt is closing ever more rapidly towards a trillion dollars a year. There is a cabal of economic gurus who think our national debt is no big deal. There are also a lot of Americans who think that cavalier attitude is or will soon be disaterous. Time will tell if it is possible to spend your way out of the deep hole that has been dug.

You can't remember? They do it every year. A balanced budget amendment was introduced just last year in the Senate.

It's posturing, because these R's don't want anyone to know how disastrous that would be for their states and districts...they know it's not going anywhere, so they posture. They think their voters are stupid and they're largely right.

"live within their means" is relative to the means. If one's income is stable or declining and there's zero expectation of improvement, then fixing one's costs below that expected amount, with whatever reserves saved for a rainy day is prudent.

If the expectation is that one's income is growing, indeed with investment and time can grow a lot, then the 'within their means' is for a growth in spending. The more that's spent on productive investment rather than just out the door and into a dump yard, the better, but it's essential to that growth engine to continue to invest in oneself and one's family.

Our national debt load is well less than the typical family's mortgage or rent as a percentage of national income.

Which doesn't mean we should simply spend more, but actual productive investments make a ton of sense...and oh btw, so does taxing the richest corporations and individuals. Wouldn't take a lot to produce more government "revenue".

As a fiscal conservative (not hawk) I simply want the spending to be smart and productive.

Talk is cheap MD, talk is very cheap. Any discussion about trying to cut spending brings out the special interests groups screaming at the top of their lungs. The only fair way to accomplish a reduction in spending has to be across the board. They can start with the defense budget and work their way down. Everybody in government is demanding the taxpayers pay more so they can accomplish less. You confuse me, I thought that along time ago in a galaxy far far away you use to be a fiscal conservative? That ship has apparently sailed never to be seen again. Your a fiscal conservative who is willing to look at 35 trillion dollar debt and not have a problem with that.
Perhaps the Republicans should nominate you as the keynote speaker at the RNC so you can explain your rationale to all mainstream Republicans. I'm sure they would all be happy to hear you splain it. What was I thinking? I was thinking that a self confessed fiscal conservative republican actually had a belief system that revolved around being fiscally conservative. Wrongo on my end.

To beat a dead horse..... there are two ways to attack the deficit: government reductions and increases in revenue. I'm so tired of people only solving their deficit concern with reductions.

[MDlaxfan76]

Unless what I read recently is incorrect is our debt now increases at 1 trillion dollars every 100 days. So that 600 billion for maintenance is growing by leaps and bounds. I guess DC is so preoccupied with the southern border that no one is paying attention to the nations credit card.

incorrect, go back to google.
We've had bursts of increases in debt, but the general pace is not nearly that fast.
Biggest issue is the huge reduction in tax rates. Hard for me to say that, but it's the reality.

No the debt is increasing at almost 1 trillion every 100 days. Not that it matters to you debt deniers.

you have a cite for that?

I meant to post the link I read. I googled it and it came up on several different sites. I have no doubt that data is correct. Try and Google 1 trillion every 100 days.

Ahh, yes, the last 2 100 days.

Huge infrastructure investments are counting toward that. But assets are growing apace, I'd argue.

I love how everyone wants to compare the national debt with their personal household finances, but they leave off their home value from the analysis or the value of college education to earning levels, or grad eduction, or technical education...they all want to look only at short term cash flow.

The old rule of thumb for a home mortgage was 30% of income as the debt level you should aim for, though today most new homebuyers have to exceed 40% to get into a home the size that their parents had afforded at 30%. And home ownership has been a quite reliable way to accumulate value, given enough time and good upkeep.

We regularly commit capital (and taking on debt) to pay for education, as lifetime earrings are predictably higher with such education (assuming it's not squandered by laziness).

Most Americans that are fiscally responsible are well aware of their personal financial situation and do their very best to live within their means. They also understand that their government could care less how they mismanage the taxpayers money. I can't recall the last politician that publicly declared we should have a balanced budget. The cost to maintain this debt is closing ever more rapidly towards a trillion dollars a year. There is a cabal of economic gurus who think our national debt is no big deal. There are also a lot of Americans who think that cavalier attitude is or will soon be disaterous. Time will tell if it is possible to spend your way out of the deep hole that has been dug.

You can't remember? They do it every year. A balanced budget amendment was introduced just last year in the Senate.

It's posturing, because these R's don't want anyone to know how disastrous that would be for their states and districts...they know it's not going anywhere, so they posture. They think their voters are stupid and they're largely right.

"live within their means" is relative to the means. If one's income is stable or declining and there's zero expectation of improvement, then fixing one's costs below that expected amount, with whatever reserves saved for a rainy day is prudent.

If the expectation is that one's income is growing, indeed with investment and time can grow a lot, then the 'within their means' is for a growth in spending. The more that's spent on productive investment rather than just out the door and into a dump yard, the better, but it's essential to that growth engine to continue to invest in oneself and one's family.

Our national debt load is well less than the typical family's mortgage or rent as a percentage of national income.

Which doesn't mean we should simply spend more, but actual productive investments make a ton of sense...and oh btw, so does taxing the richest corporations and individuals. Wouldn't take a lot to produce more government "revenue".

As a fiscal conservative (not hawk) I simply want the spending to be smart and productive.

Talk is cheap MD, talk is very cheap. Any discussion about trying to cut spending brings out the special interests groups screaming at the top of their lungs. The only fair way to accomplish a reduction in spending has to be across the board. They can start with the defense budget and work their way down. Everybody in government is demanding the taxpayers pay more so they can accomplish less. You confuse me, I thought that along time ago in a galaxy far far away you use to be a fiscal conservative? That ship has apparently sailed never to be seen again. Your a fiscal conservative who is willing to look at 35 trillion dollar debt and not have a problem with that.
Perhaps the Republicans should nominate you as the keynote speaker at the RNC so you can explain your rationale to all mainstream Republicans. I'm sure they would all be happy to hear you splain it. What was I thinking? I was thinking that a self confessed fiscal conservative republican actually had a belief system that revolved around being fiscally conservative. Wrongo on my end.

No, I predicted big deficits due to the Trump tax cuts when the economy was growing nicely without such deficit spending stimulus. Save for a rainy day, a war, pandemic, financial crisis. Instead of those tax cuts we should have actually been making major investments in infrastructure with long term ROI. Not infrastructure weeks, no investment. That’s conservative.

[cradleandshoot]

Unless what I read recently is incorrect is our debt now increases at 1 trillion dollars every 100 days. So that 600 billion for maintenance is growing by leaps and bounds. I guess DC is so preoccupied with the southern border that no one is paying attention to the nations credit card.

incorrect, go back to google.
We've had bursts of increases in debt, but the general pace is not nearly that fast.
Biggest issue is the huge reduction in tax rates. Hard for me to say that, but it's the reality.

No the debt is increasing at almost 1 trillion every 100 days. Not that it matters to you debt deniers.

you have a cite for that?

I meant to post the link I read. I googled it and it came up on several different sites. I have no doubt that data is correct. Try and Google 1 trillion every 100 days.

Ahh, yes, the last 2 100 days.

Huge infrastructure investments are counting toward that. But assets are growing apace, I'd argue.

I love how everyone wants to compare the national debt with their personal household finances, but they leave off their home value from the analysis or the value of college education to earning levels, or grad eduction, or technical education...they all want to look only at short term cash flow.

The old rule of thumb for a home mortgage was 30% of income as the debt level you should aim for, though today most new homebuyers have to exceed 40% to get into a home the size that their parents had afforded at 30%. And home ownership has been a quite reliable way to accumulate value, given enough time and good upkeep.

We regularly commit capital (and taking on debt) to pay for education, as lifetime earrings are predictably higher with such education (assuming it's not squandered by laziness).

Most Americans that are fiscally responsible are well aware of their personal financial situation and do their very best to live within their means. They also understand that their government could care less how they mismanage the taxpayers money. I can't recall the last politician that publicly declared we should have a balanced budget. The cost to maintain this debt is closing ever more rapidly towards a trillion dollars a year. There is a cabal of economic gurus who think our national debt is no big deal. There are also a lot of Americans who think that cavalier attitude is or will soon be disaterous. Time will tell if it is possible to spend your way out of the deep hole that has been dug.

You can't remember? They do it every year. A balanced budget amendment was introduced just last year in the Senate.

It's posturing, because these R's don't want anyone to know how disastrous that would be for their states and districts...they know it's not going anywhere, so they posture. They think their voters are stupid and they're largely right.

"live within their means" is relative to the means. If one's income is stable or declining and there's zero expectation of improvement, then fixing one's costs below that expected amount, with whatever reserves saved for a rainy day is prudent.

If the expectation is that one's income is growing, indeed with investment and time can grow a lot, then the 'within their means' is for a growth in spending. The more that's spent on productive investment rather than just out the door and into a dump yard, the better, but it's essential to that growth engine to continue to invest in oneself and one's family.

Our national debt load is well less than the typical family's mortgage or rent as a percentage of national income.

Which doesn't mean we should simply spend more, but actual productive investments make a ton of sense...and oh btw, so does taxing the richest corporations and individuals. Wouldn't take a lot to produce more government "revenue".

As a fiscal conservative (not hawk) I simply want the spending to be smart and productive.

Talk is cheap MD, talk is very cheap. Any discussion about trying to cut spending brings out the special interests groups screaming at the top of their lungs. The only fair way to accomplish a reduction in spending has to be across the board. They can start with the defense budget and work their way down. Everybody in government is demanding the taxpayers pay more so they can accomplish less. You confuse me, I thought that along time ago in a galaxy far far away you use to be a fiscal conservative? That ship has apparently sailed never to be seen again. Your a fiscal conservative who is willing to look at 35 trillion dollar debt and not have a problem with that.
Perhaps the Republicans should nominate you as the keynote speaker at the RNC so you can explain your rationale to all mainstream Republicans. I'm sure they would all be happy to hear you splain it. What was I thinking? I was thinking that a self confessed fiscal conservative republican actually had a belief system that revolved around being fiscally conservative. Wrongo on my end.

No, I predicted big deficits due to the Trump tax cuts when the economy was growing nicely without such deficit spending stimulus. Save for a rainy day, a war, pandemic, financial crisis. Instead of those tax cuts we should have actually been making major investments in infrastructure with long term ROI. Not infrastructure weeks, no investment. That’s conservative.

Maybe those trump tax cuts found their way to the 1% folks that live in NYS. They sure as hell never materialized in my neck of the woods. I would love to see the day when any politician no matter what party runs for office promising his/her constituents their taxes will be raised considerably. That is an interesting strategy if your hoping to win an election.

[a fan]

I would love to see the day when any politician no matter what party runs for office promising his/her constituents their taxes will be raised considerably. That is an interesting strategy if your hoping to win an election.

It used to be a given. Reagan raised taxes. So did Bush. And Clinton.

Bush is where the modern Republican party's "taxes are bad" game started. And shocker, that's when our deficit started going bonkers.'

Obama and Biden are the first two Presidents since 1953 to cut Federal spending from one year to the next.

Or? If you prefer? Credit Congress for both of the above.

[cradleandshoot]

I would love to see the day when any politician no matter what party runs for office promising his/her constituents their taxes will be raised considerably. That is an interesting strategy if your hoping to win an election.

It used to be a given. Reagan raised taxes. So did Bush. And Clinton.

Bush is where the modern Republican party's "taxes are bad" game started. And shocker, that's when our deficit started going bonkers.'

Obama and Biden are the first two Presidents since 1953 to cut Federal spending from one year to the next.

Or? If you prefer? Credit Congress for both of the above.

Can you clarify the difference between a tax and a user fee? They seem pretty much the same to me. There is also access line fees when dealing your local gas and electric company. Some silly people might consider that a tax on what you pay for gas and electric service. I know crazy talk right. Do you remember a Fan back in the day when you went to fill up your tank? There use to be those signs attached to the pump with the breakdown of federal, state and other taxes per gallon. Why did they disappear? Is it possible the government didn't want the peasants knowing how much they paid in user fees per gallon?? Those informational sign sure went away fast didn't they? Anybody out there know what we pay in tax for a gallon of gas at the federal level?

[jhu72]

.... the gas station doesn't know the amount, they are not billed for the tax, they are only billed for whatever the distributor charges them for "gasoline". The gasoline distributor pays the tax at the time the gasoline is transferred from their storage tank to the tanker truck. You can do the calculation yourself just by knowing the number of gallons bought. The states don't require the station to display the information on their receipts or the pump.

This is why when a taxing authority gives a "gas tax holiday" they always make a plea to the distributors to pass it all along to the consumer. Collecting taxes this way makes the job easier for the taxing authorities. The number of organizations taxed is smaller and easier to audit. Also more difficult for the taxing authorities to be cheated.

[runrussellrun]

RFK Junior has an excellent financial plan for the United States of America

[MDlaxfan76]

Unless what I read recently is incorrect is our debt now increases at 1 trillion dollars every 100 days. So that 600 billion for maintenance is growing by leaps and bounds. I guess DC is so preoccupied with the southern border that no one is paying attention to the nations credit card.

incorrect, go back to google.
We've had bursts of increases in debt, but the general pace is not nearly that fast.
Biggest issue is the huge reduction in tax rates. Hard for me to say that, but it's the reality.

No the debt is increasing at almost 1 trillion every 100 days. Not that it matters to you debt deniers.

you have a cite for that?

I meant to post the link I read. I googled it and it came up on several different sites. I have no doubt that data is correct. Try and Google 1 trillion every 100 days.

Ahh, yes, the last 2 100 days.

Huge infrastructure investments are counting toward that. But assets are growing apace, I'd argue.

I love how everyone wants to compare the national debt with their personal household finances, but they leave off their home value from the analysis or the value of college education to earning levels, or grad eduction, or technical education...they all want to look only at short term cash flow.

The old rule of thumb for a home mortgage was 30% of income as the debt level you should aim for, though today most new homebuyers have to exceed 40% to get into a home the size that their parents had afforded at 30%. And home ownership has been a quite reliable way to accumulate value, given enough time and good upkeep.

We regularly commit capital (and taking on debt) to pay for education, as lifetime earrings are predictably higher with such education (assuming it's not squandered by laziness).

Most Americans that are fiscally responsible are well aware of their personal financial situation and do their very best to live within their means. They also understand that their government could care less how they mismanage the taxpayers money. I can't recall the last politician that publicly declared we should have a balanced budget. The cost to maintain this debt is closing ever more rapidly towards a trillion dollars a year. There is a cabal of economic gurus who think our national debt is no big deal. There are also a lot of Americans who think that cavalier attitude is or will soon be disaterous. Time will tell if it is possible to spend your way out of the deep hole that has been dug.

You can't remember? They do it every year. A balanced budget amendment was introduced just last year in the Senate.

It's posturing, because these R's don't want anyone to know how disastrous that would be for their states and districts...they know it's not going anywhere, so they posture. They think their voters are stupid and they're largely right.

"live within their means" is relative to the means. If one's income is stable or declining and there's zero expectation of improvement, then fixing one's costs below that expected amount, with whatever reserves saved for a rainy day is prudent.

If the expectation is that one's income is growing, indeed with investment and time can grow a lot, then the 'within their means' is for a growth in spending. The more that's spent on productive investment rather than just out the door and into a dump yard, the better, but it's essential to that growth engine to continue to invest in oneself and one's family.

Our national debt load is well less than the typical family's mortgage or rent as a percentage of national income.

Which doesn't mean we should simply spend more, but actual productive investments make a ton of sense...and oh btw, so does taxing the richest corporations and individuals. Wouldn't take a lot to produce more government "revenue".

As a fiscal conservative (not hawk) I simply want the spending to be smart and productive.

Talk is cheap MD, talk is very cheap. Any discussion about trying to cut spending brings out the special interests groups screaming at the top of their lungs. The only fair way to accomplish a reduction in spending has to be across the board. They can start with the defense budget and work their way down. Everybody in government is demanding the taxpayers pay more so they can accomplish less. You confuse me, I thought that along time ago in a galaxy far far away you use to be a fiscal conservative? That ship has apparently sailed never to be seen again. Your a fiscal conservative who is willing to look at 35 trillion dollar debt and not have a problem with that.
Perhaps the Republicans should nominate you as the keynote speaker at the RNC so you can explain your rationale to all mainstream Republicans. I'm sure they would all be happy to hear you splain it. What was I thinking? I was thinking that a self confessed fiscal conservative republican actually had a belief system that revolved around being fiscally conservative. Wrongo on my end.

No, I predicted big deficits due to the Trump tax cuts when the economy was growing nicely without such deficit spending stimulus. Save for a rainy day, a war, pandemic, financial crisis. Instead of those tax cuts we should have actually been making major investments in infrastructure with long term ROI. Not infrastructure weeks, no investment. That’s conservative.

Maybe those trump tax cuts found their way to the 1% folks that live in NYS. They sure as hell never materialized in my neck of the woods. I would love to see the day when any politician no matter what party runs for office promising his/her constituents their taxes will be raised considerably. That is an interesting strategy if your hoping to win an election.

I don't know your tax bracket, but pretty sure the bulk of those cuts were in higher brackets and corporations.

[OCanada]

Unless what I read recently is incorrect is our debt now increases at 1 trillion dollars every 100 days. So that 600 billion for maintenance is growing by leaps and bounds. I guess DC is so preoccupied with the southern border that no one is paying attention to the nations credit card.

incorrect, go back to google.
We've had bursts of increases in debt, but the general pace is not nearly that fast.
Biggest issue is the huge reduction in tax rates. Hard for me to say that, but it's the reality.

No the debt is increasing at almost 1 trillion every 100 days. Not that it matters to you debt deniers.

you have a cite for that?

I meant to post the link I read. I googled it and it came up on several different sites. I have no doubt that data is correct. Try and Google 1 trillion every 100 days.

Ahh, yes, the last 2 100 days.

Huge infrastructure investments are counting toward that. But assets are growing apace, I'd argue.

I love how everyone wants to compare the national debt with their personal household finances, but they leave off their home value from the analysis or the value of college education to earning levels, or grad eduction, or technical education...they all want to look only at short term cash flow.

The old rule of thumb for a home mortgage was 30% of income as the debt level you should aim for, though today most new homebuyers have to exceed 40% to get into a home the size that their parents had afforded at 30%. And home ownership has been a quite reliable way to accumulate value, given enough time and good upkeep.

We regularly commit capital (and taking on debt) to pay for education, as lifetime earrings are predictably higher with such education (assuming it's not squandered by laziness).

Most Americans that are fiscally responsible are well aware of their personal financial situation and do their very best to live within their means. They also understand that their government could care less how they mismanage the taxpayers money. I can't recall the last politician that publicly declared we should have a balanced budget. The cost to maintain this debt is closing ever more rapidly towards a trillion dollars a year. There is a cabal of economic gurus who think our national debt is no big deal. There are also a lot of Americans who think that cavalier attitude is or will soon be disaterous. Time will tell if it is possible to spend your way out of the deep hole that has been dug.

You can't remember? They do it every year. A balanced budget amendment was introduced just last year in the Senate.

It's posturing, because these R's don't want anyone to know how disastrous that would be for their states and districts...they know it's not going anywhere, so they posture. They think their voters are stupid and they're largely right.

"live within their means" is relative to the means. If one's income is stable or declining and there's zero expectation of improvement, then fixing one's costs below that expected amount, with whatever reserves saved for a rainy day is prudent.

If the expectation is that one's income is growing, indeed with investment and time can grow a lot, then the 'within their means' is for a growth in spending. The more that's spent on productive investment rather than just out the door and into a dump yard, the better, but it's essential to that growth engine to continue to invest in oneself and one's family.

Our national debt load is well less than the typical family's mortgage or rent as a percentage of national income.

Which doesn't mean we should simply spend more, but actual productive investments make a ton of sense...and oh btw, so does taxing the richest corporations and individuals. Wouldn't take a lot to produce more government "revenue".

As a fiscal conservative (not hawk) I simply want the spending to be smart and productive.

Talk is cheap MD, talk is very cheap. Any discussion about trying to cut spending brings out the special interests groups screaming at the top of their lungs. The only fair way to accomplish a reduction in spending has to be across the board. They can start with the defense budget and work their way down. Everybody in government is demanding the taxpayers pay more so they can accomplish less. You confuse me, I thought that along time ago in a galaxy far far away you use to be a fiscal conservative? That ship has apparently sailed never to be seen again. Your a fiscal conservative who is willing to look at 35 trillion dollar debt and not have a problem with that.
Perhaps the Republicans should nominate you as the keynote speaker at the RNC so you can explain your rationale to all mainstream Republicans. I'm sure they would all be happy to hear you splain it. What was I thinking? I was thinking that a self confessed fiscal conservative republican actually had a belief system that revolved around being fiscally conservative. Wrongo on my end.

No, I predicted big deficits due to the Trump tax cuts when the economy was growing nicely without such deficit spending stimulus. Save for a rainy day, a war, pandemic, financial crisis. Instead of those tax cuts we should have actually been making major investments in infrastructure with long term ROI. Not infrastructure weeks, no investment. That’s conservative.

Maybe those trump tax cuts found their way to the 1% folks that live in NYS. They sure as hell never materialized in my neck of the woods. I would love to see the day when any politician no matter what party runs for office promising his/her constituents their taxes will be raised considerably. That is an interesting strategy if your hoping to win an election.

I don't know your tax bracket, but pretty sure the bulk of those cuts were in higher brackets and corporations.

The GOP three big tax cuts failed to pay for themselves and despite promises they were never going to pay themselves. They have returned about 33%x. Following the Trump tax cut there was a massive transfer of wealth from the poor and middle classes to the wealthy. Instead of balancing the budget Trump increased the deficit by about $8 trillion dollars.

Trump in fact increased taxes on those making less than 70-75,000 per year every two years until 2027. In other words the claim is patently false.

[OCanada]

Costs of everything increases over time

Deficits are evaluated relative to the size of the economy. For example if the deficit increases did its growth trail or exceed the growth in GDP. The GOP never bothers to make the link.

Trump had the worst 4 year GDP since WWll i believe.

Biden on the other hand has grown GDP far more. Ergo altering the direction of the economy and deficit. The greatest GDP growth since WWll was the 1950s. The second greatest growth was the 1990s. The worst was the 2000s w Bush.

The GOP has been playing with numbers on SS as well.

Back in the 1960s the GOP realized that given population growth and composition they would likely never gain the presidency with their policies. At that point they sst a goal of becoming the permanent ruling party. Organizations like the AEI, Heritage Foundation were funded to develop policy papers. University programs were established. Under graduate recruitment was increased. Strategies to reduce the number of opposition voters were developed. Gerrymandering was made an art etc.

In 2012 I had a meeting w a client’s attorney on the new Congress members comprising the freedom caucus. . His message was they had a one word vocabulary, mostly were failures in business and had little experience with governing and understanding the differences between the private sector and public sectors.

[youthathletics]

Agreed, he screwed the the vast majority of America come tax time. The standard deduction changes is what really impacted people. I’d love to see how the charitable deductions have been over the past 10 years and their associated demographics. I’d argue/speculate they’ve gone down rather significantly, considering they can no longer be written off unless it exceeds the new standard deduction….which is more often out of limits for most.

[cradleandshoot]

Unless what I read recently is incorrect is our debt now increases at 1 trillion dollars every 100 days. So that 600 billion for maintenance is growing by leaps and bounds. I guess DC is so preoccupied with the southern border that no one is paying attention to the nations credit card.

incorrect, go back to google.
We've had bursts of increases in debt, but the general pace is not nearly that fast.
Biggest issue is the huge reduction in tax rates. Hard for me to say that, but it's the reality.

No the debt is increasing at almost 1 trillion every 100 days. Not that it matters to you debt deniers.

you have a cite for that?

I meant to post the link I read. I googled it and it came up on several different sites. I have no doubt that data is correct. Try and Google 1 trillion every 100 days.

Ahh, yes, the last 2 100 days.

Huge infrastructure investments are counting toward that. But assets are growing apace, I'd argue.

I love how everyone wants to compare the national debt with their personal household finances, but they leave off their home value from the analysis or the value of college education to earning levels, or grad eduction, or technical education...they all want to look only at short term cash flow.

The old rule of thumb for a home mortgage was 30% of income as the debt level you should aim for, though today most new homebuyers have to exceed 40% to get into a home the size that their parents had afforded at 30%. And home ownership has been a quite reliable way to accumulate value, given enough time and good upkeep.

We regularly commit capital (and taking on debt) to pay for education, as lifetime earrings are predictably higher with such education (assuming it's not squandered by laziness).

Most Americans that are fiscally responsible are well aware of their personal financial situation and do their very best to live within their means. They also understand that their government could care less how they mismanage the taxpayers money. I can't recall the last politician that publicly declared we should have a balanced budget. The cost to maintain this debt is closing ever more rapidly towards a trillion dollars a year. There is a cabal of economic gurus who think our national debt is no big deal. There are also a lot of Americans who think that cavalier attitude is or will soon be disaterous. Time will tell if it is possible to spend your way out of the deep hole that has been dug.

You can't remember? They do it every year. A balanced budget amendment was introduced just last year in the Senate.

It's posturing, because these R's don't want anyone to know how disastrous that would be for their states and districts...they know it's not going anywhere, so they posture. They think their voters are stupid and they're largely right.

"live within their means" is relative to the means. If one's income is stable or declining and there's zero expectation of improvement, then fixing one's costs below that expected amount, with whatever reserves saved for a rainy day is prudent.

If the expectation is that one's income is growing, indeed with investment and time can grow a lot, then the 'within their means' is for a growth in spending. The more that's spent on productive investment rather than just out the door and into a dump yard, the better, but it's essential to that growth engine to continue to invest in oneself and one's family.

Our national debt load is well less than the typical family's mortgage or rent as a percentage of national income.

Which doesn't mean we should simply spend more, but actual productive investments make a ton of sense...and oh btw, so does taxing the richest corporations and individuals. Wouldn't take a lot to produce more government "revenue".

As a fiscal conservative (not hawk) I simply want the spending to be smart and productive.

Talk is cheap MD, talk is very cheap. Any discussion about trying to cut spending brings out the special interests groups screaming at the top of their lungs. The only fair way to accomplish a reduction in spending has to be across the board. They can start with the defense budget and work their way down. Everybody in government is demanding the taxpayers pay more so they can accomplish less. You confuse me, I thought that along time ago in a galaxy far far away you use to be a fiscal conservative? That ship has apparently sailed never to be seen again. Your a fiscal conservative who is willing to look at 35 trillion dollar debt and not have a problem with that.
Perhaps the Republicans should nominate you as the keynote speaker at the RNC so you can explain your rationale to all mainstream Republicans. I'm sure they would all be happy to hear you splain it. What was I thinking? I was thinking that a self confessed fiscal conservative republican actually had a belief system that revolved around being fiscally conservative. Wrongo on my end.

No, I predicted big deficits due to the Trump tax cuts when the economy was growing nicely without such deficit spending stimulus. Save for a rainy day, a war, pandemic, financial crisis. Instead of those tax cuts we should have actually been making major investments in infrastructure with long term ROI. Not infrastructure weeks, no investment. That’s conservative.

Maybe those trump tax cuts found their way to the 1% folks that live in NYS. They sure as hell never materialized in my neck of the woods. I would love to see the day when any politician no matter what party runs for office promising his/her constituents their taxes will be raised considerably. That is an interesting strategy if your hoping to win an election.

I don't know your tax bracket, but pretty sure the bulk of those cuts were in higher brackets and corporations.

Do you think that I'm not aware of that fact? If your a middle class, law abiding, taxpaying NYS citizen you already know all of those tax reductions promised by both parties will never include you. Your taxes not unlike your grocery bill only head in one direction. Can you guess what that direction is?

[runrussellrun]

Trump is very, very worried about this VP choice.

https://indianexpress.com/article/expla ... y-9236572/

Why Robert F Kennedy Jr’s US elections candidacy has Joe Biden sweating
RFK Jr is contesting in the upcoming United States presidential elections as an independent. Will he make a mark?
Written by Arjun Sengupta
New Delhi | Updated: March 28, 2024 11:18 IST
Newsguard

Follow Us



Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. announces his vice presidential candidate in Oakland
Robert F Kennedy Jr next to Nicole Shanahan during a rally in Oakland, California. (REUTERS/Laure Andrillon)
Robert Francis Kennedy Jr, known simply as RFK Jr, is contesting in the upcoming United States presidential elections as an independent, hoping to disrupt the country’s deeply entrenched two-party system.

On Tuesday (March 26), he named Nicole Shanahan, a 38-year old Silicon Valley attorney and entrepreneur, as his running mate. RFK Jr hopes that Shanahan’s deep pockets, rags-to-riches story, and tech sector expertise will provide a boost to his campaign, which, according to some political analysts, has incumbent President Joe Biden sweating.


Here is what you need to know about RFK Jr, and whether he can make a dent into American politics’ established duopoly.

ADVERTISEMENT
Kennedy scion, environment “hero”, notorious anti-vaxxer
RFK Jr is the son of former US attorney general and senator Robert F Kennedy, and the nephew of former US President John F Kennedy. The 70-year-old has made his career, first as an lawyer, and then as an activist and politician, milking his family name.

After completing law school, RFK Jr had a short stint as assistant district attorney for Manhattan. Following this, he forayed into environmental law, working as an attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, and leading Riverkeeper, a nonprofit committed to safeguarding New York’s Hudson River and its surrounding watershed. In 1999, Time magazine hailed him as a “hero for the planet” for his environmental activism.

Festive offer
Must Read | Trump ahead of Biden in key US states, finds survey: What it means, why it matters
Over the past two and a half decades, RFK Jr has been one of the leading anti-vaccine voices in the United States, responsible for spreading numerous scientifically debunked conspiracy theories, most notably, the theory which links incidence of autism to vaccines. According to a report by US’s The Week magazine, he “penned an article … that claimed there were links between autism and the thimerosal compound found in vaccines… This essay was torn apart by researchers and journalists who identified multiple errors and seemingly deliberate instances of Kennedy slicing and dicing transcripts and research to prove his conspiracy theory”.

Notably, like his father and uncle, RFK Jr has been a lifelong Democrat. He even challenged (and lost to) President Biden in the party’s primaries last year.

ADVERTISEMENT
A potential spoiler candidate for Biden
While no third-party candidate in history has sniffed the US presidency — and RFK Jr is unlikely to change this fact — there is nonetheless significant media buzz surrounding the campaign. Some of it has to do with the Kennedy name, of course. But experts also say that the septuagenarian has gotten the Democratic establishment worried.

According to RealClearPolling, Kennedy is currently averaging about 12 percent in the presidential polls — not enough to win him the presidency, but more than enough for him to play spoilsport. Celinda Lake, a pollster associated with the Democratic Party, told Vox that polling and focus groups her firm has been conducting suggest Kennedy will pull voters from Biden.

His campaign seems to be resonating with the so-called “double-haters” — deeply opposed to Donald Trump, but at the same time disaffected with Joe Biden and his presidency. “He’s filling a vacuum. And that vacuum is this disaffected voter vacuum. I think he’s a placeholder more than anything else,” Ipsos political analyst Clifford Young told Vox.

Express View | Express View on the US presidential race: Change and continuity
And the Democrats should dismiss him at his own peril. As political analyst Chuck Rocha noted: “Sure, he’s a crazy anti-vaxxer, conspiracy theorist, [rumored] steroid enthusiast, and tough communicator, but at the end of the day, his last name is still Kennedy, and I believe that will allow him to gain way more Democratic votes than Republican”.

ADVERTISEMENT
RFK Jr’s biggest challenge, however, will be to get on the ballots in all 50 states. The Democratic Party has recently set up a legal team to make sure this does not happen — leverage the US’s complicated ballot rules to ensure that RFK Jr stays off the ballot in key swing states.

Current polling, by-and-large, indicates that former President Donald is likely to make a return to the White House next year. However, the election will be close, no matter who wins, with seven-eight swing states holding key to the presidency.

[youthathletics]

Biden and Obama traveling together....wonder why? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68685608

[Seacoaster(1)]

Biden and Obama traveling together....wonder why? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68685608

Because Obama is secretly running the country, right?

We need more tinfoil on Aisle YA.

[NattyBohChamps04]

Biden and Obama traveling together....wonder why? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68685608

The answer is in the article you posted.

[youthathletics]

Biden and Obama traveling together....wonder why? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68685608

Because Obama is secretly running the country, right?

We need more tinfoil on Aisle YA.

Why is BHO even involved is the point? Between him and the Clinton’s continual involvement while someone else is POTUS just looks poor.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Biden and Obama traveling together....wonder why? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68685608

Because Obama is secretly running the country, right?

We need more tinfoil on Aisle YA.

Why is BHO even involved is the point? Between him and the Clinton’s continual involvement while someone else is POTUS just looks poor.

“Involvement”? How exactly are they involved?