The Nation's Financial Condition

[MDlaxfan76]

Inflation data hot off the press

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cpi.pdf

Ex food and energy +0.5 (Monthly)

All items 6.8% annul inflation.

Gonna be a rough ride for the next months, I'd think.
Could well be getting better before next summer, but time will tell.

[youthathletics]

I like this guys message :

Sorry, he lost me from the get go when he said Biden and the Dems were "devastating the American economy, devastating the American dollar"...facts matter in my world.

How do you read this chart of dollar to euro for instance: https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from ... UR&view=2Y

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... -the-world

You clearly did not listen to it. As someone who claims to be a fiscal conservative, to find fault in his argument....implies you are not who you say you are. Either that....or you just like to pick nits.

[MDlaxfan76]

I like this guys message :

Sorry, he lost me from the get go when he said Biden and the Dems were "devastating the American economy, devastating the American dollar"...facts matter in my world.

How do you read this chart of dollar to euro for instance: https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from ... UR&view=2Y

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... -the-world

You clearly did not listen to it. As someone who claims to be a fiscal conservative, to find fault in his argument....implies you are not who you say you are. Either that....or you just like to pick nits.

sorry, as I said, he lost me from the get go...I'm not wasting my time with a political blowhard, no-nothing.
Hyperbole just doesn't deserve attention.

And you didn't bother to respond to my question. Please do.

And respond to this: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/house ... =home-page

But to your comment re fiscal conservative, I'm less concerned about the stimulative effect of all those COVID dollars in the crisis environment we were in, and the after effects of such than I would be if the structural components of our economy weren't actually so strong.

By contrast, I thought the stimulative effects of the huge tax cuts in 2017 coupled with the big increases in defense spending, were not needed for the already very strong economy. Drove a big sugar high that we really didn't need and left a big deficit for little benefit. Inequality expanded dramatically as well.

As a fiscal conservative, I'm most concerned about the planned investments over the next 5+ years in these bills, both the hard infrastructure and the 'soft' under consideration, being invested wisely. It won't get spent all at once, so I see them as creating an ongoing base driver...but they darn well need to increase productivity, else they're gonna just be 'sugar'...

What I like about them, though, is that they're designed, primarily, to drive productivity, with more benefit to working class, and to accelerate conversion to cleaner, cheaper energy. I think that'll pay decades long dividends.

My greatest concern is that we won't invest in driving worldwide competitive advantage, in an increasingly competitive world environment, especially with the challenge from China...so, I want us to commit long term, and big. We've failed to do so over past multiple decades, been complacent.

I'm more concerned about people pressing to simply spend $ faster...I'd rather see the various investments get spread out, be thoroughly vetted, be well planned, well run...and that's not easy nor fast.

[youthathletics]

I like this guys message :

Sorry, he lost me from the get go when he said Biden and the Dems were "devastating the American economy, devastating the American dollar"...facts matter in my world.

How do you read this chart of dollar to euro for instance: https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from ... UR&view=2Y

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... -the-world

You clearly did not listen to it. As someone who claims to be a fiscal conservative, to find fault in his argument....implies you are not who you say you are. Either that....or you just like to pick nits.

sorry, as I said, he lost me from the get go...I'm not wasting my time with a political blowhard, no-nothing.
Hyperbole just doesn't deserve attention.

And you didn't bother to respond to my question. Please do.

And respond to this: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/house ... =home-page

But to your comment re fiscal conservative, I'm less concerned about the stimulative effect of all those COVID dollars in the crisis environment we were in, and the after effects of such than I would be if the structural components of our economy weren't actually so strong.

By contrast, I thought the stimulative effects of the huge tax cuts in 2017 coupled with the big increases in defense spending, were not needed for the already very strong economy. Drove a big sugar high that we really didn't need and left a big deficit for little benefit. Inequality expanded dramatically as well.

As a fiscal conservative, I'm most concerned about the planned investments over the next 5+ years in these bills, both the hard infrastructure and the 'soft' under consideration, being invested wisely. It won't get spent all at once, so I see them as creating an ongoing base driver...but they darn well need to increase productivity, else they're gonna just be 'sugar'...

What I like about them, though, is that they're designed, primarily, to drive productivity, with more benefit to working class, and to accelerate conversion to cleaner, cheaper energy. I think that'll pay decades long dividends.

My greatest concern is that we won't invest in driving worldwide competitive advantage, in an increasingly competitive world environment, especially with the challenge from China...so, I want us to commit long term, and big. We've failed to do so over past multiple decades, been complacent.

I'm more concerned about people pressing to simply spend $ faster...I'd rather see the various investments get spread out, be thoroughly vetted, be well planned, well run...and that's not easy nor fast.

What is your point......that deficit spending and a balanced budget is no big deal because our household networth has risen since the 50's? If so, I tend to agree and federal budgets are really inconsequential and just talking points. I've made that similar argument for quite some time.

[Kismet]

I like this guys message :

Sorry, he lost me from the get go when he said Biden and the Dems were "devastating the American economy, devastating the American dollar"...facts matter in my world.

How do you read this chart of dollar to euro for instance: https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from ... UR&view=2Y

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... -the-world

You clearly did not listen to it. As someone who claims to be a fiscal conservative, to find fault in his argument....implies you are not who you say you are. Either that....or you just like to pick nits.

sorry, as I said, he lost me from the get go...I'm not wasting my time with a political blowhard, no-nothing.
Hyperbole just doesn't deserve attention.

And you didn't bother to respond to my question. Please do.

And respond to this: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/house ... =home-page

But to your comment re fiscal conservative, I'm less concerned about the stimulative effect of all those COVID dollars in the crisis environment we were in, and the after effects of such than I would be if the structural components of our economy weren't actually so strong.

By contrast, I thought the stimulative effects of the huge tax cuts in 2017 coupled with the big increases in defense spending, were not needed for the already very strong economy. Drove a big sugar high that we really didn't need and left a big deficit for little benefit. Inequality expanded dramatically as well.

As a fiscal conservative, I'm most concerned about the planned investments over the next 5+ years in these bills, both the hard infrastructure and the 'soft' under consideration, being invested wisely. It won't get spent all at once, so I see them as creating an ongoing base driver...but they darn well need to increase productivity, else they're gonna just be 'sugar'...

What I like about them, though, is that they're designed, primarily, to drive productivity, with more benefit to working class, and to accelerate conversion to cleaner, cheaper energy. I think that'll pay decades long dividends.

My greatest concern is that we won't invest in driving worldwide competitive advantage, in an increasingly competitive world environment, especially with the challenge from China...so, I want us to commit long term, and big. We've failed to do so over past multiple decades, been complacent.

I'm more concerned about people pressing to simply spend $ faster...I'd rather see the various investments get spread out, be thoroughly vetted, be well planned, well run...and that's not easy nor fast.

What is your point......that deficit spending and a balanced budget is no big deal because our household networth has risen since the 50's? If so, I tend to agree and federal budgets are really inconsequential and just talking points. I've made that similar argument for quite some time.

Not that I'd listen to a lunatic like Chip Roy ranting for 50 seconds let alone 50 minutes. Where was he when the former DOPUS and the Congress Roy was in racking up 66% more debt than the previous administration?

[Farfromgeneva]

Inflation data hot off the press

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cpi.pdf

Ex food and energy +0.5 (Monthly)

All items 6.8% annul inflation.

Gonna be a rough ride for the next months, I'd think.
Could well be getting better before next summer, but time will tell.

I dont know. Labor pretty tight but real earnings are declining after having exceeded CPI during 2020.

[youthathletics]

I like this guys message :

Sorry, he lost me from the get go when he said Biden and the Dems were "devastating the American economy, devastating the American dollar"...facts matter in my world.

How do you read this chart of dollar to euro for instance: https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from ... UR&view=2Y

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... -the-world

You clearly did not listen to it. As someone who claims to be a fiscal conservative, to find fault in his argument....implies you are not who you say you are. Either that....or you just like to pick nits.

sorry, as I said, he lost me from the get go...I'm not wasting my time with a political blowhard, no-nothing.
Hyperbole just doesn't deserve attention.

And you didn't bother to respond to my question. Please do.

And respond to this: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/house ... =home-page

But to your comment re fiscal conservative, I'm less concerned about the stimulative effect of all those COVID dollars in the crisis environment we were in, and the after effects of such than I would be if the structural components of our economy weren't actually so strong.

By contrast, I thought the stimulative effects of the huge tax cuts in 2017 coupled with the big increases in defense spending, were not needed for the already very strong economy. Drove a big sugar high that we really didn't need and left a big deficit for little benefit. Inequality expanded dramatically as well.

As a fiscal conservative, I'm most concerned about the planned investments over the next 5+ years in these bills, both the hard infrastructure and the 'soft' under consideration, being invested wisely. It won't get spent all at once, so I see them as creating an ongoing base driver...but they darn well need to increase productivity, else they're gonna just be 'sugar'...

What I like about them, though, is that they're designed, primarily, to drive productivity, with more benefit to working class, and to accelerate conversion to cleaner, cheaper energy. I think that'll pay decades long dividends.

My greatest concern is that we won't invest in driving worldwide competitive advantage, in an increasingly competitive world environment, especially with the challenge from China...so, I want us to commit long term, and big. We've failed to do so over past multiple decades, been complacent.

I'm more concerned about people pressing to simply spend $ faster...I'd rather see the various investments get spread out, be thoroughly vetted, be well planned, well run...and that's not easy nor fast.

What is your point......that deficit spending and a balanced budget is no big deal because our household networth has risen since the 50's? If so, I tend to agree and federal budgets are really inconsequential and just talking points. I've made that similar argument for quite some time.

Not that I'd listen to a lunatic like Chip Roy ranting for 50 seconds let alone 50 minutes. Where was he when the former DOPUS and the Congress Roy was in racking up 66% more debt than the previous administration?

Agreed. I've had this conversation with AFAN many times. Deficit spending and budgets only matter during an election cycle....that's it. His message is what we should be doing...but no one ever does it.

[youthathletics]

Inflation data hot off the press

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cpi.pdf

Ex food and energy +0.5 (Monthly)

All items 6.8% annul inflation.

Gonna be a rough ride for the next months, I'd think.
Could well be getting better before next summer, but time will tell.

I dont know. Labor pretty tight but real earnings are declining after having exceeded CPI during 2020.

NO worries.....as MD noted here --> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/house ... =home-page All is well.

[Farfromgeneva]

First quarter is always but will be especially interesting here's what we have as of now:

Fed Reserve started taper in Dec and will almost definitely double pace of reduction in bond purchases announced this month.

Real earnings yield of S&P 500 is -3%.

Investment managers get fresh allocations each Jan 1 and a lot, especially Insurance general account investment managers and related ALM investment officers and like to spend it like that 1st of the month check.

Housing inflation just starting to impact overall inflation metrics this month/quarter.

Labor market tight and a "sellers market".

Strcutured products and leveraged finance all are trying to jam deals through before year end so they can price based on Libor (told this many times since week prior to Thanksgiving from various issuers and investors).

It all adds up to who knows. Too much intervention for too long so the unwind with so much else going on tells me rates will go up and that will eventually mute inflation but I think it won't do much for either rates or inflation until late 22 as it has to flow through the system and there's some latency.

[MDlaxfan76]

First quarter is always but will be especially interesting here's what we have as of now:

Fed Reserve started taper in Dec and will almost definitely double pace of reduction in bond purchases announced this month.

Real earnings yield of S&P 500 is -3%.

Investment managers get fresh allocations each Jan 1 and a lot, especially Insurance general account investment managers and related ALM investment officers and like to spend it like that 1st of the month check.

Housing inflation just starting to impact overall inflation metrics this month/quarter.

Labor market tight and a "sellers market".

Strcutured products and leveraged finance all are trying to jam deals through before year end so they can price based on Libor (told this many times since week prior to Thanksgiving from various issuers and investors).

It all adds up to who knows. Too much intervention for too long so the unwind with so much else going on tells me rates will go up and that will eventually mute inflation but I think it won't do much for either rates or inflation until late 22 as it has to flow through the system and there's some latency.

Seems to me one question is how much of this inflation is due to long period of easy money, sugar highs of 207-2019, and stimulus, including last round last spring (so addressable through tapering of easy money) VERSUS the portion due to huge shift in demand sectors, services to hard goods and the burst of demand in energy sector.

If the latter is actually the dominant factor, as many economists had been saying, then the timing may well be a bit faster and with less constriction on money supply needed (and I agree, it looks like the DED is going to taper faster)...we're already seeing all sorts of signs of the beginning of some normalization in various commodities...not yet back to normal, but bumping down...for instance crude is basically back down where it was for 2018, not as low as 2019, and certainly not akin to Covid 2020, but here's the thing...it's way below 2013 and 2014. Copper is basically where it was in 2010.

In any case, I think it's going to be a bumpy six months, and maybe longer, given that there's so much economic uncertainty...other than that demand has skyrocketed and hasn't yet been curbed by inflation.

I don't get paid to analyze this stuff, so am only commenting as a consumer and someone interested in the politics/policy arena...so, certainly no expert.

[MDlaxfan76]

I like this guys message :

Sorry, he lost me from the get go when he said Biden and the Dems were "devastating the American economy, devastating the American dollar"...facts matter in my world.

How do you read this chart of dollar to euro for instance: https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from ... UR&view=2Y

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... -the-world

You clearly did not listen to it. As someone who claims to be a fiscal conservative, to find fault in his argument....implies you are not who you say you are. Either that....or you just like to pick nits.

sorry, as I said, he lost me from the get go...I'm not wasting my time with a political blowhard, no-nothing.
Hyperbole just doesn't deserve attention.

And you didn't bother to respond to my question. Please do.

And respond to this: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/house ... =home-page

But to your comment re fiscal conservative, I'm less concerned about the stimulative effect of all those COVID dollars in the crisis environment we were in, and the after effects of such than I would be if the structural components of our economy weren't actually so strong.

By contrast, I thought the stimulative effects of the huge tax cuts in 2017 coupled with the big increases in defense spending, were not needed for the already very strong economy. Drove a big sugar high that we really didn't need and left a big deficit for little benefit. Inequality expanded dramatically as well.

As a fiscal conservative, I'm most concerned about the planned investments over the next 5+ years in these bills, both the hard infrastructure and the 'soft' under consideration, being invested wisely. It won't get spent all at once, so I see them as creating an ongoing base driver...but they darn well need to increase productivity, else they're gonna just be 'sugar'...

What I like about them, though, is that they're designed, primarily, to drive productivity, with more benefit to working class, and to accelerate conversion to cleaner, cheaper energy. I think that'll pay decades long dividends.

My greatest concern is that we won't invest in driving worldwide competitive advantage, in an increasingly competitive world environment, especially with the challenge from China...so, I want us to commit long term, and big. We've failed to do so over past multiple decades, been complacent.

I'm more concerned about people pressing to simply spend $ faster...I'd rather see the various investments get spread out, be thoroughly vetted, be well planned, well run...and that's not easy nor fast.

What is your point......that deficit spending and a balanced budget is no big deal because our household networth has risen since the 50's? If so, I tend to agree and federal budgets are really inconsequential and just talking points. I've made that similar argument for quite some time.

Not that I'd listen to a lunatic like Chip Roy ranting for 50 seconds let alone 50 minutes. Where was he when the former DOPUS and the Congress Roy was in racking up 66% more debt than the previous administration?

Agreed. I've had this conversation with AFAN many times. Deficit spending and budgets only matter during an election cycle....that's it. His message is what we should be doing...but no one ever does it.

He's an idiot and partisan hack.

But if you want to articulate what you think is important and why, I'd take that seriously.
But not him.

BTW, I asked you a couple of straight questions; waiting for your thoughts.

[a fan]

I like this guys message :

He's yet another fake small government that attended two State schools.....UVa and UT Austin. Where does he think the money needed to operate those schools come from? Hugs and rainbows?

And, of course, Chip Roy voted for a PPP bill, and other spending. But as usual, the spending that went toward his education, and the spending that he signed on for "doesn't count" as getting stuff for free, right?

Poster boy for Republican policies. "It doesn't count as Big Government if the spending is something that me or my family get".

My advice for Roy is to cut taxes to pay for all this spending. Remember when posters here (snicker) were convinced that that would work?

[youthathletics]

I like this guys message :

Sorry, he lost me from the get go when he said Biden and the Dems were "devastating the American economy, devastating the American dollar"...facts matter in my world.

How do you read this chart of dollar to euro for instance: https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from ... UR&view=2Y

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... -the-world

You clearly did not listen to it. As someone who claims to be a fiscal conservative, to find fault in his argument....implies you are not who you say you are. Either that....or you just like to pick nits.

sorry, as I said, he lost me from the get go...I'm not wasting my time with a political blowhard, no-nothing.
Hyperbole just doesn't deserve attention.

And you didn't bother to respond to my question. Please do.

And respond to this: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/house ... =home-page

But to your comment re fiscal conservative, I'm less concerned about the stimulative effect of all those COVID dollars in the crisis environment we were in, and the after effects of such than I would be if the structural components of our economy weren't actually so strong.

By contrast, I thought the stimulative effects of the huge tax cuts in 2017 coupled with the big increases in defense spending, were not needed for the already very strong economy. Drove a big sugar high that we really didn't need and left a big deficit for little benefit. Inequality expanded dramatically as well.

As a fiscal conservative, I'm most concerned about the planned investments over the next 5+ years in these bills, both the hard infrastructure and the 'soft' under consideration, being invested wisely. It won't get spent all at once, so I see them as creating an ongoing base driver...but they darn well need to increase productivity, else they're gonna just be 'sugar'...

What I like about them, though, is that they're designed, primarily, to drive productivity, with more benefit to working class, and to accelerate conversion to cleaner, cheaper energy. I think that'll pay decades long dividends.

My greatest concern is that we won't invest in driving worldwide competitive advantage, in an increasingly competitive world environment, especially with the challenge from China...so, I want us to commit long term, and big. We've failed to do so over past multiple decades, been complacent.

I'm more concerned about people pressing to simply spend $ faster...I'd rather see the various investments get spread out, be thoroughly vetted, be well planned, well run...and that's not easy nor fast.

What is your point......that deficit spending and a balanced budget is no big deal because our household networth has risen since the 50's? If so, I tend to agree and federal budgets are really inconsequential and just talking points. I've made that similar argument for quite some time.

Not that I'd listen to a lunatic like Chip Roy ranting for 50 seconds let alone 50 minutes. Where was he when the former DOPUS and the Congress Roy was in racking up 66% more debt than the previous administration?

Agreed. I've had this conversation with AFAN many times. Deficit spending and budgets only matter during an election cycle....that's it. His message is what we should be doing...but no one ever does it.

He's an idiot and partisan hack.

But if you want to articulate what you think is important and why, I'd take that seriously.
But not him.

BTW, I asked you a couple of straight questions; waiting for your thoughts.

I missed the first one, where you asked about the value of the dollar...... So US cash is still king....and? what does that have to do with paying our debt as a fiscal conservative?

I answered the second one...in blue.

[youthathletics]

I like this guys message :

He's yet another fake small government that attended two State schools.....UVa and UT Austin. Where does he think the money needed to operate those schools come from? Hugs and rainbows?

And, of course, Chip Roy voted for a PPP bill, and other spending. But as usual, the spending that went toward his education, and the spending that he signed on for "doesn't count" as getting stuff for free, right?

Poster boy for Republican policies. "It doesn't count as Big Government if the spending is something that me or my family get".

My advice for Roy is to cut taxes to pay for all this spending. Remember when posters here (snicker) were convinced that that would work?

So you shoot the messenger, but its the very thing you want to happen; pay our damned bills. BTW, thanks for playing the game, that deficit spending is never going away and fussing over the debt is nothing more than partisan grandstanding.

[a fan]

So you shoot the messenger, but its the very thing you want to happen; pay our damned bills.

1. He's not the messenger. I'm the messenger, YA. How's that working out?

He's the guy doing the spending, and the guy who REFUSES to raise our taxes. He's literally the problem, an hilariously, he doesn't know he's the problem because he's never met someone like me who can tell him, for example, where UVa and UT Austin get their operating budget from....

2. Your party won't pay bills. Full stop. It's the ONE thing you're against....raising taxes to pay for what we get. The Dems? They're more than willing to raise taxes, albeit not how I'd personally like....so on this count? They have the high ground.

BTW, thanks for playing the game, that deficit spending is never going away and fussing over the debt is nothing more than partisan grandstanding.

Not really.

-One side wants to keep spending, pretend like they don't do that, and keeps cutting taxes.

-The other side wants to keep spending, will tell you to their face that they want to do that, and wants to raise taxes.

If you're REALLY a fiscal conservative? Which side would you choose?

[Farfromgeneva]

First quarter is always but will be especially interesting here's what we have as of now:

Fed Reserve started taper in Dec and will almost definitely double pace of reduction in bond purchases announced this month.

Real earnings yield of S&P 500 is -3%.

Investment managers get fresh allocations each Jan 1 and a lot, especially Insurance general account investment managers and related ALM investment officers and like to spend it like that 1st of the month check.

Housing inflation just starting to impact overall inflation metrics this month/quarter.

Labor market tight and a "sellers market".

Strcutured products and leveraged finance all are trying to jam deals through before year end so they can price based on Libor (told this many times since week prior to Thanksgiving from various issuers and investors).

It all adds up to who knows. Too much intervention for too long so the unwind with so much else going on tells me rates will go up and that will eventually mute inflation but I think it won't do much for either rates or inflation until late 22 as it has to flow through the system and there's some latency.

Seems to me one question is how much of this inflation is due to long period of easy money, sugar highs of 207-2019, and stimulus, including last round last spring (so addressable through tapering of easy money) VERSUS the portion due to huge shift in demand sectors, services to hard goods and the burst of demand in energy sector.

If the latter is actually the dominant factor, as many economists had been saying, then the timing may well be a bit faster and with less constriction on money supply needed (and I agree, it looks like the DED is going to taper faster)...we're already seeing all sorts of signs of the beginning of some normalization in various commodities...not yet back to normal, but bumping down...for instance crude is basically back down where it was for 2018, not as low as 2019, and certainly not akin to Covid 2020, but here's the thing...it's way below 2013 and 2014. Copper is basically where it was in 2010.

In any case, I think it's going to be a bumpy six months, and maybe longer, given that there's so much economic uncertainty...other than that demand has skyrocketed and hasn't yet been curbed by inflation.

I don't get paid to analyze this stuff, so am only commenting as a consumer and someone interested in the politics/policy arena...so, certainly no expert.

It's not 2017 - 2019, it's 2009 - 2021, we've had 12yrs of more or lesss zero rate policy. When they did try to move rates in 2013 they caved in a nanosecond to the markets and again two years ago. Commodities really don't drive long term inflation anyways, it's housing, wages, food to some degree, healthcare and education. I don't like the looks of 2H 2022...

[youthathletics]

So you shoot the messenger, but its the very thing you want to happen; pay our damned bills.

1. He's not the messenger. I'm the messenger, YA. How's that working out?

He's the guy doing the spending, and the guy who REFUSES to raise our taxes. He's literally the problem, an hilariously, he doesn't know he's the problem because he's never met someone like me who can tell him, for example, where UVa and UT Austin get their operating budget from....

2. Your party won't pay bills. Full stop. It's the ONE thing you're against....raising taxes to pay for what we get. The Dems? They're more than willing to raise taxes, albeit not how I'd personally like....so on this count? They have the high ground.

BTW, thanks for playing the game, that deficit spending is never going away and fussing over the debt is nothing more than partisan grandstanding.

Not really.

-One side wants to keep spending, pretend like they don't do that, and keeps cutting taxes.

-The other side wants to keep spending, will tell you to their face that they want to do that, and wants to raise taxes.

If you're REALLY a fiscal conservative? Which side would you choose?

You can not be serious, that this is a partisan issue, the entire point of this discussion and the video is to prove that it is not partisan. Your binary conclusion is just plan wrong, they both spend into oblivion, #TAATS. Last I checked, our tax revenue is at an all time high and corporate tax revenue took a nice bump north this year. The last time we had a surplus was 2001......thank the DOT COM boom for that when it fell in Clintons lap.

[PizzaSnake]

I like this guys message :

Sorry, he lost me from the get go when he said Biden and the Dems were "devastating the American economy, devastating the American dollar"...facts matter in my world.

How do you read this chart of dollar to euro for instance: https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from ... UR&view=2Y

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... -the-world

You clearly did not listen to it. As someone who claims to be a fiscal conservative, to find fault in his argument....implies you are not who you say you are. Either that....or you just like to pick nits.

sorry, as I said, he lost me from the get go...I'm not wasting my time with a political blowhard, no-nothing.
Hyperbole just doesn't deserve attention.

And you didn't bother to respond to my question. Please do.

And respond to this: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/house ... =home-page

But to your comment re fiscal conservative, I'm less concerned about the stimulative effect of all those COVID dollars in the crisis environment we were in, and the after effects of such than I would be if the structural components of our economy weren't actually so strong.

By contrast, I thought the stimulative effects of the huge tax cuts in 2017 coupled with the big increases in defense spending, were not needed for the already very strong economy. Drove a big sugar high that we really didn't need and left a big deficit for little benefit. Inequality expanded dramatically as well.

As a fiscal conservative, I'm most concerned about the planned investments over the next 5+ years in these bills, both the hard infrastructure and the 'soft' under consideration, being invested wisely. It won't get spent all at once, so I see them as creating an ongoing base driver...but they darn well need to increase productivity, else they're gonna just be 'sugar'...

What I like about them, though, is that they're designed, primarily, to drive productivity, with more benefit to working class, and to accelerate conversion to cleaner, cheaper energy. I think that'll pay decades long dividends.

My greatest concern is that we won't invest in driving worldwide competitive advantage, in an increasingly competitive world environment, especially with the challenge from China...so, I want us to commit long term, and big. We've failed to do so over past multiple decades, been complacent.

I'm more concerned about people pressing to simply spend $ faster...I'd rather see the various investments get spread out, be thoroughly vetted, be well planned, well run...and that's not easy nor fast.

“ What I like about them, though, is that they're designed, primarily, to drive productivity, with more benefit to working class, and to accelerate conversion to cleaner, cheaper energy. I think that'll pay decades long dividends.”

For me, the real question is, are these infrastructure expenditures designed to augment the infrastructure we have “inherited” in its neglected state, or will they drive the painfully necessary modifications necessary to withstand the physical realities of the future? I say physical realities because I don’t wish to debate the cause.

[Typical Lax Dad]

So you shoot the messenger, but its the very thing you want to happen; pay our damned bills.

1. He's not the messenger. I'm the messenger, YA. How's that working out?

He's the guy doing the spending, and the guy who REFUSES to raise our taxes. He's literally the problem, an hilariously, he doesn't know he's the problem because he's never met someone like me who can tell him, for example, where UVa and UT Austin get their operating budget from....

2. Your party won't pay bills. Full stop. It's the ONE thing you're against....raising taxes to pay for what we get. The Dems? They're more than willing to raise taxes, albeit not how I'd personally like....so on this count? They have the high ground.

BTW, thanks for playing the game, that deficit spending is never going away and fussing over the debt is nothing more than partisan grandstanding.

Not really.

-One side wants to keep spending, pretend like they don't do that, and keeps cutting taxes.

-The other side wants to keep spending, will tell you to their face that they want to do that, and wants to raise taxes.

If you're REALLY a fiscal conservative? Which side would you choose?

You can not be serious, that this is a partisan issue, the entire point of this discussion and the video is to prove that it is not partisan. Your binary conclusion is just plan wrong, they both spend into oblivion, #TAATS. Last I checked, our tax revenue is at an all time high and corporate tax revenue took a nice bump north this year. The last time we had a surplus was 2001......thank the DOT COM boom for that when it fell in Clintons lap.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FCTAX

[Farfromgeneva]

So you shoot the messenger, but its the very thing you want to happen; pay our damned bills.

1. He's not the messenger. I'm the messenger, YA. How's that working out?

He's the guy doing the spending, and the guy who REFUSES to raise our taxes. He's literally the problem, an hilariously, he doesn't know he's the problem because he's never met someone like me who can tell him, for example, where UVa and UT Austin get their operating budget from....

2. Your party won't pay bills. Full stop. It's the ONE thing you're against....raising taxes to pay for what we get. The Dems? They're more than willing to raise taxes, albeit not how I'd personally like....so on this count? They have the high ground.

BTW, thanks for playing the game, that deficit spending is never going away and fussing over the debt is nothing more than partisan grandstanding.

Not really.

-One side wants to keep spending, pretend like they don't do that, and keeps cutting taxes.

-The other side wants to keep spending, will tell you to their face that they want to do that, and wants to raise taxes.

If you're REALLY a fiscal conservative? Which side would you choose?

You can not be serious, that this is a partisan issue, the entire point of this discussion and the video is to prove that it is not partisan. Your binary conclusion is just plan wrong, they both spend into oblivion, #TAATS. Last I checked, our tax revenue is at an all time high and corporate tax revenue took a nice bump north this year. The last time we had a surplus was 2001......thank the DOT COM boom for that when it fell in Clintons lap.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FCTAX

Facts