The Nation's Financial Condition

[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

Facts

But who is keeping score….DOT COM boom wasn’t the only thing in Clinton’s lap…

[a fan]

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.

That's what YOU got out of the video, because you're hearing what you want to hear.

He opens the BS speech by admitting to having the biggest economic event of his life being enabled by big government. It's literally why he's there on the floor of Congress.

-he cops to his wife attending two public colleges in TX, and taking out Federal loans to attend. So two MASSIVE, expensive Big Government programs.
-then he cops that he, too, attended public universities, included UT Austin law...and again taking out Federal loans to do so.

So is his speech about him admitting to literally not having his current job without these massive, expensive Federal programs? Or does he demand that he and his wife pay higher taxes to cover these expenses? F no. He's a Republican. So he's not going to notice that in the bills he signs, with zero thought, sends billions to places like UT Austin to keep the lights on.

So he tells you about how these massive programs got he and his wife some pretty nice degrees..... and he's so freaking stupid the he doesn't understand that the Federal Student loan program costs taxpayers money, and doesn't understand that what he paid to UT Austin in tuition doesn't come anywhere close to covering the cost of his education...and taxpayers cover the difference. He's CONVINCED that he paid for every penny of his education. Nope. Not even close. Taxpayers paid a huge chunk.

What did I get out of this? Don't send my kid to UT Austin, because obviously, he didn't learn much there.

He griped about the very subsidies that he and his wife got, YouthAthletics. How many more times do I have to show these people to you before you realize that they are the biggest hypocrites of all. Chip Roy is trying to tell you that his hands are clean of all of this...that he took the high road.

Yeah no. He didn't. The high road would have been to work harder, attend a PRIVATE school, and not take out those Federal loans at all. He CHOSE not to do that. He CHOSE the Big Government handout.
------------

Or how about this------is he there to propose highter taxes to pay for this stuff? Nope.

Hypocrite. So when he talks about the House of "free stuff"? It eliminates the validity of the rest of his points about not sitting down and budgeting each year, YA. Would this guy sign on for higher taxes? F no. So what's the point in "sitting down".


And he doesn't get the elimination of student loans. None of them do. Why? He's a Republican. So he's upset that someone else got a taxpayer perq. But if you ask him....."hey dude, what about the taxpayers who don't have kids, yet kicked in to pay for part of YOUR education at UT Austin?"

He doesn't have an answer for them. Because in his mind? His tuition covered it. Nope. Not even close.

And his "funding the FBI to investigate parents"? And then on to the smash and grab thefts. And then on to border issues. And then on to the Dept. of Education to "teach kids to hate America". Please. This is FoxNation greatest hits. Hard pass.

Your binary conclusion is just plan wrong, they both spend into oblivion, #TAATS.

Nope. Obama cut spending, my man. You don't want to hear it, so you pretend it didn't happen.

And you ALWAYS leave out the other side of the ledger: Taxes. Name one single member of your party that's for raising taxes to pay for all this stuff.

Go ahead. I'll wait.

This guy is complaining about stuff that's free? I have a simple answer for this idiot: get your *ss back in there, and sponsor a Republican bill that raises taxes so that this stuff is no longer free. Problem solved.

Last I checked, our tax revenue is at an all time high

YA, come on.

What did you think would happen when the .gov cut all those checks for Covid relief?

So we borrow trillions, give it to taxpayers, and then they spend it......and it's taxed. OF COURSE tax revenues went up after all that PPP and unemployment bennies!

[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

But who is keeping score….DOT COM boom wasn’t the only thing in Clinton’s lap…

Maybe we need more “balancing” out of the White House.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SoqZutsd1m0

[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.

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

Yours only went to 2020, this is the one I used, which included 2021 https://datalab.usaspending.gov/america ... ue/trends/

[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

Yours only went to 2020, this is the one I used, which included 2021 https://datalab.usaspending.gov/america ... ue/trends/

Thanks. Biden has the economic engine chugging.

[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.

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.

No, we're a reserve currency, a safe haven currency, specifically because we're the world's strongest and most resilient economy. That enables us to print money and worry far less about a call on our debts.

And it's a refutation, pretty obviously, of the numbskull you posted. The dollar is stronger, not weaker under Biden. So, too the economy. As I said, facts matter.

But as I've also noted that doesn't mean we should squander that advantage. We need to actually remain the most competitive, most productive large economy in the world.

[youthathletics]

Hypocrite. So when he talks about the House of "free stuff"? It eliminates the validity of the rest of his points about not sitting down and budgeting each year, YA. Would this guy sign on for higher taxes? F no. So what's the point in "sitting down".

That was the entire point of me posting this. He spoke like you do around here regarding the over spending......and then gives us the finger doing that which he complains about. I will say it again....they all do it and deficit spending is the new norm....none of them 'truly care' about a budget and spending.

I had already tried conveying this to you a couple times....but you seemed to intent to attack him, rightfully so....thus proving my point, again. That they all just give lip service. The people we want no longer exist afan, and if they do, they have no say in getting their way, overruled,...period! Either accept it or we can both pray someone comes along and rights the ship.

Sorry to get you so riled up, honestly.

[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

Yours only went to 2020, this is the one I used, which included 2021 https://datalab.usaspending.gov/america ... ue/trends/

Thanks. Biden has the economic engine chugging.

Thats part of it. Also only goes back less than 4 years. A real time series would go further back like the at louis Fed -this chart is kind of pointless.

And of course one is corporate tax receipts and one is personal. The decline in corporate tax receipts is astonishing. And it’s pushed into individuals which probably is part of the explanation of the widening wealth gap.

[youthathletics]

No, we're a reserve currency, a safe haven currency, specifically because we're the world's strongest and most resilient economy. That enables us to print money and worry far less about a call on our debts.

And it's a refutation, pretty obviously, of the numbskull you posted. The dollar is stronger, not weaker under Biden. So, too the economy. As I said, facts matter.

But as I've also noted that doesn't mean we should squander that advantage. We need to actually remain the most competitive, most productive large economy in the world.

We are in agreement. So to be clear......you are fine with deficit spending?

[MDlaxfan76]

No, we're a reserve currency, a safe haven currency, specifically because we're the world's strongest and most resilient economy. That enables us to print money and worry far less about a call on our debts.

And it's a refutation, pretty obviously, of the numbskull you posted. The dollar is stronger, not weaker under Biden. So, too the economy. As I said, facts matter.

But as I've also noted that doesn't mean we should squander that advantage. We need to actually remain the most competitive, most productive large economy in the world.

We are in agreement. So to be clear......you are fine with deficit spending?

Sure, but the capital value of the country needs to rise as fast or faster than deficits in any extended period else it's indeed problematic. But as long as that's generally occurring, I'm fine. Though it's preferable of course if capital value rises faster than deficits...that provides some dry powder for a rainy day burst of spending.

That's why it bothered me when we incurred massive increases in deficits under Trump when the economy was already booming and didn't need the extra goose.

In general, I think we need to do enough taxing to pay our way over time, though. And I'm in favor of progressive taxation, much as that means I'll pay more.

[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

Yours only went to 2020, this is the one I used, which included 2021 https://datalab.usaspending.gov/america ... ue/trends/

Thanks. Biden has the economic engine chugging.

Thats part of it. Also only goes back less than 4 years. A real time series would go further back like the at louis Fed -this chart is kind of pointless.

And of course one is corporate tax receipts and one is personal. The decline in corporate tax receipts is astonishing. And it’s pushed into individuals which probably is part of the explanation of the widening wealth gap.

Absolutely. I argued with a buddy about the shift in tax burden from corporations to citizens. People have been brainwashed….people that get up and go to work everyday, fight for companies and the wealthy. It’s amazing. Poor people fighting the battle for rich people.

[a fan]

Hypocrite. So when he talks about the House of "free stuff"? It eliminates the validity of the rest of his points about not sitting down and budgeting each year, YA. Would this guy sign on for higher taxes? F no. So what's the point in "sitting down".

That was the entire point of me posting this. He spoke like you do around here regarding the over spending......and then gives us the finger doing that which he complains about. I will say it again....they all do it and deficit spending is the new norm....none of them 'truly care' about a budget and spending.

I had already tried conveying this to you a couple times....but you seemed to intent to attack him, rightfully so....thus proving my point, again. That they all just give lip service. The people we want no longer exist afan, and if they do, they have no say in getting their way, overruled,...period! Either accept it or we can both pray someone comes along and rights the ship.

Sorry to get you so riled up, honestly.

And I'm sorry to get riled up. I get mad because this man SHOULD be what we want. But he shows up in DC, and it all goes out the window. Same freaking thing happened to Crenshaw.

I hate it. Don't mean to take it out on you. Sorry.

[a fan]

And of course one is corporate tax receipts and one is personal. The decline in corporate tax receipts is astonishing. And it’s pushed into individuals which probably is part of the explanation of the widening wealth gap.

Absolutely. I argued with a buddy about the shift in tax burden from corporations to citizens. People have been brainwashed.

I've had avowed far left liberals tell me that it makes sense for my company to pay full freight, while Amazon pays nothing.

They think when the number get large, something "magic" happens to addition and subtraction. I gave up.

I couldn't even get him to agree that it makes sense to tax my biz and Amazon equally. He insisted Amazon should pay less. Crazy.

[Typical Lax Dad]

And of course one is corporate tax receipts and one is personal. The decline in corporate tax receipts is astonishing. And it’s pushed into individuals which probably is part of the explanation of the widening wealth gap.

Absolutely. I argued with a buddy about the shift in tax burden from corporations to citizens. People have been brainwashed.

I've had avowed far left liberals tell me that it makes sense for my company to pay full freight, while Amazon pays nothing.

They think when the number get large, something "magic" happens to addition and subtraction. I gave up.

I couldn't even get him to agree that it makes sense to tax my biz and Amazon equally. He insisted Amazon should pay less. Crazy.

It’s remarkable. The power of mass media communication.

[Farfromgeneva]

94 pages maybe some will want to read just the abstract but on SPACs.

https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.p ... INDEX=TRUE

Upshot-costlier than IPOs and the cost of being public is born by investors (read retail) rather than the companies as in a traditional
IPO. (Company investors are typical sophisticated professional investors)

[PizzaSnake]

“ The public policy debate over broad student debt cancellation is forcing colleges to confront their role in a lending system that provides critical access for those wanting to attend but comes at a cost that can limit the value of higher education. Eliminating the need to borrow positions colleges to attract and retain strong students, but sustaining and scaling the policy is challenging.”

So, the “strong” students get relief and the others remain debt slaves? Excellent. This sounds like a great plan for long term economic success. Or, maybe, this short-sighted thinking is because policy makers envision no future?


https://www.washingtonpost.com/educatio ... ent-loans/

[Farfromgeneva]

“ The public policy debate over broad student debt cancellation is forcing colleges to confront their role in a lending system that provides critical access for those wanting to attend but comes at a cost that can limit the value of higher education. Eliminating the need to borrow positions colleges to attract and retain strong students, but sustaining and scaling the policy is challenging.”

So, the “strong” students get relief and the others remain debt slaves? Excellent. This sounds like a great plan for long term economic success. Or, maybe, this short-sighted thinking is because policy makers envision no future?


https://www.washingtonpost.com/educatio ... ent-loans/

Complex issue but yeah colleges have screwed kids and their parents for years. Ae colleges supposed to sacrifice the well being of their students for their own legacies? Does perpetual existence outweigh providing the best education to as many as possible?

Political economy-insistutions ultimately exist for themselves rather than the causes. Should a institution of higher ed have infinite life or does that even matter over doing the most it can for a finite period of time?

Can I get a credit on the $80-$90k I borrowed and paid off from grad school? Heck I’d take a carry forward NOL style credit and that would make me happy if the govt tried to pull a forgiveness play. Semi leveling on that.

[PizzaSnake]

“ The public policy debate over broad student debt cancellation is forcing colleges to confront their role in a lending system that provides critical access for those wanting to attend but comes at a cost that can limit the value of higher education. Eliminating the need to borrow positions colleges to attract and retain strong students, but sustaining and scaling the policy is challenging.”

So, the “strong” students get relief and the others remain debt slaves? Excellent. This sounds like a great plan for long term economic success. Or, maybe, this short-sighted thinking is because policy makers envision no future?


https://www.washingtonpost.com/educatio ... ent-loans/

Complex issue but yeah colleges have screwed kids and their parents for years. Ae colleges supposed to sacrifice the well being of their students for their own legacies? Does perpetual existence outweigh providing the best education to as many as possible?

Political economy-insistutions ultimately exist for themselves rather than the causes. Should a institution of higher ed have infinite life or does that even matter over doing the most it can for a finite period of time?

Can I get a credit on the $80-$90k I borrowed and paid off from grad school? Heck I’d take a carry forward NOL style credit and that would make me happy if the govt tried to pull a forgiveness play. Semi leveling on that.

I’m a functionalist. Institutions don’t have causes, they have functions.

As it is, the various institutions of higher education are decidely NOT providing the function of providing education (except perhaps a painful lesson in the vagaries of poorly constrained capitalism).

And then there is the transition from a system aimed towards a specific subset of the populace to a bastardized credential used as an approximate measure of employability. Often the credential is required rather than any specific knowledge or skill.

Moving on in this analysis we can observe the “shifting” of employee selection and basic skills training to these institutions, largely at the individual’s expense and risk.

The recent perturbances in the employer-employee relationship have resulted in a reduction in the requirement of this often meaningless and frequently onerous self-funded certification.

[Kismet]

Hypocrite. So when he talks about the House of "free stuff"? It eliminates the validity of the rest of his points about not sitting down and budgeting each year, YA. Would this guy sign on for higher taxes? F no. So what's the point in "sitting down".

That was the entire point of me posting this. He spoke like you do around here regarding the over spending......and then gives us the finger doing that which he complains about. I will say it again....they all do it and deficit spending is the new norm....none of them 'truly care' about a budget and spending.

I had already tried conveying this to you a couple times....but you seemed to intent to attack him, rightfully so....thus proving my point, again. That they all just give lip service. The people we want no longer exist afan, and if they do, they have no say in getting their way, overruled,...period! Either accept it or we can both pray someone comes along and rights the ship.

Sorry to get you so riled up, honestly.

IMHO some parts of the economy (corporations and very rich people) haven't been paying anywhere near a fair amount of their share of taxes for quite some time. Even if somehow we managed to get them to pay, we are so far in the hole that I think we'd still be running a deficit. There is no excuse for a fan's small business to pay full freight while Amazon pays ZIPPO.

One reason spending is increasing is that the age of our population is also increasing and those benefits now need to be paid because those folks already contributed and are expecting their payout.

In addition, USA Birthrate is now essentially a Baby Bust. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. birthrate fell by 4 percent in 2020 — hitting a record low. Expectation that 2021 will repeat this statistic. Sadly, the death rate is also up thanks to COVID. People are having fewer children than the 2.1 needed to maintain a steady population. That's been true for years across all domestic communities. At some point, we are going to run out of workers unless we take a good look at immigration policy. We have used immigration in this fashion since the inception of the Republic and it's silly to think we are not going to need to do it again.

[PizzaSnake]

Hypocrite. So when he talks about the House of "free stuff"? It eliminates the validity of the rest of his points about not sitting down and budgeting each year, YA. Would this guy sign on for higher taxes? F no. So what's the point in "sitting down".

That was the entire point of me posting this. He spoke like you do around here regarding the over spending......and then gives us the finger doing that which he complains about. I will say it again....they all do it and deficit spending is the new norm....none of them 'truly care' about a budget and spending.

I had already tried conveying this to you a couple times....but you seemed to intent to attack him, rightfully so....thus proving my point, again. That they all just give lip service. The people we want no longer exist afan, and if they do, they have no say in getting their way, overruled,...period! Either accept it or we can both pray someone comes along and rights the ship.

Sorry to get you so riled up, honestly.

IMHO some parts of the economy (corporations and very rich people) haven't been paying anywhere near a fair amount of their share of taxes for quite some time. Even if somehow we managed to get them to pay, we are so far in the hole that I think we'd still be running a deficit. There is no excuse for a fan's small business to pay full freight while Amazon pays ZIPPO.

One reason spending is increasing is that the age of our population is also increasing and those benefits now need to be paid because those folks already contributed and are expecting their payout.

In addition, USA Birthrate is now essentially a Baby Bust. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. birthrate fell by 4 percent in 2020 — hitting a record low. Expectation that 2021 will repeat this statistic. Sadly, the death rate is also up thanks to COVID. People are having fewer children than the 2.1 needed to maintain a steady population. That's been true for years across all domestic communities. At some point, we are going to run out of workers unless we take a good look at immigration policy. We have used immigration in this fashion since the inception of the Republic and it's silly to think we are not going to need to do it again.

Regarding the Baby Bust, why would a “rational actor” (most likely a unicorn…) choose to produce children in the face of the ever increasingly hostile (environmentally, financially, and politically)?

So we turn to state mandated coercion? Guess twentieth century dalliance with female suffrage is over.

To answer the inevitable question of the motivation if this retrograde diminishment if female agency I posit two non-exclusionary causes: fear and jealousy.

Certain (most) men fear women because they women are rhe fount of life and men, while necessary, are incidental to population growth (basic animal husbandry). Men, realizing this, fear a declaration of redundancy and culling ( though some heartily embrace war, one if the primary culling mechanisms,).

As to the second, jealousy again because they cannot conceive and bear life, and because the nature of their bond with said issue is profoundly different and insubstantial.

So, history has seen the rise of patriarchal cultures and institutions that have regulated and circumscribed the agency of women, i.e. most cultures prior to 20th century, and most religions, Christianity and Islam being striking examples. Jydaism, with the matrilineal succession, is an interesting blend of patriarchy and common sense understanding of lineage: “it’s a wise man who knows his children.”