America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 38,689 comments
  • 1,585,250 views
Joey D
I say it more as a rhetorical question than anything. I still maintain that the president has little bearing over the stock market.

Today's "crash" is probably a result of speculation the government will raise interest rates. The market is also vastly overvalued, so really it's probably just coming down to where it should be.
Click to expand...

Some analysis is also suggesting that it came from electronic stop losses which automatically triggered selling during a downturn which caused a more pronounced downturn. As such, a fair amount of that selloff may not represent actual misgivings about anything financial. Human nature plays into market corrections a bit as well. They tend to go down hard and come up slower. It's harder to find someone who is buying when everyone is selling than to find someone who is selling when everyone is buying. That means prices drop faster than they rise.
 
I guess Congress doesn't understand how budgets work.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42981072

You can't cut taxes then raise spending without getting deeper in debt.

And while it appears some Republicans are up in arms regarding the budget, I'm guessing there's not one of them will in cut back the grossly over funded defense spending. Instead, I'm guessing they'd rather cut things that make virtually no difference.

Although it seems like anything can get pushed through now if you just say "well it's for the 'brave' men and women in uniform".

I know DACA is a major sticking point, but I wonder how much it actually costs once you figure it all out. The most common number I see is $26 billion over 10 years, so roughly $2.6 billion per year. That's not that much in the grand scheme of things. I also see a number saying they pay about $2 billion in taxes every years, which seems to offset the number a bit too. Whatever the case, this seems like pretty much a non issue with regards to budget and more of a rhetoric weapon used by some politicians who want to spread false information.

I also know Trump wants funding for his wall, which I still maintain is the stupidest possible way of protecting the border. When you're line of defense can be defeated by a ladder, you aren't trying very hard. It seems like that money would be better spent on things that actually work to secure the border instead of some symbolic, over priced, brick and mortar solution.
 
Joey D
I guess Congress doesn't understand how budgets work.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42981072

You can't cut taxes then raise spending without getting deeper in debt.

And while it appears some Republicans are up in arms regarding the budget, I'm guessing there's not one of them will in cut back the grossly over funded defense spending. Instead, I'm guessing they'd rather cut things that make virtually no difference.

Although it seems like anything can get pushed through now if you just say "well it's for the 'brave' men and women in uniform".

I know DACA is a major sticking point, but I wonder how much it actually costs once you figure it all out. The most common number I see is $26 billion over 10 years, so roughly $2.6 billion per year. That's not that much in the grand scheme of things. I also see a number saying they pay about $2 billion in taxes every years, which seems to offset the number a bit too. Whatever the case, this seems like pretty much a non issue with regards to budget and more of a rhetoric weapon used by some politicians who want to spread false information.

I also know Trump wants funding for his wall, which I still maintain is the stupidest possible way of protecting the border. When you're line of defense can be defeated by a ladder, you aren't trying very hard. It seems like that money would be better spent on things that actually work to secure the border instead of some symbolic, over priced, brick and mortar solution.
Click to expand...
You're seeing the Trump effect in action IMO. He blusters and bumbles his way along, the Democrats freak out at every little thing turning molehills into mountains, celebrities go on tv and make fun of him turning every little gaffe into mental illness or him morphing into Hitler. Whether it's by design or natural or a bit of both really doesn't matter. Problem is, it's a little like crying wolf. You can only do it so many times and still have the people's attention. So many stories pass through the headlines they all morph into one big story and the outrage machine is operating at 99%, 24 hours a day. Everything is cause for a mental breakdown or angry retweet in order to draw attention to their oh so important opinion so they can get their 15 minutes in. When you're outraged 24 hours a day every criticism, no matter how small, is treated with the same yelling and screaming. It all becomes background noise at some point.

Then along comes something that matters. Dramatic increases in spending and huge budget deficits. Back in the day, this would be headline news for weeks. It'd be discussed over and over on the talk shows, network and cable news etc. Now? It's just another story, a few numbers on a page to tittilate the masses for a day or two and then off to the next outrageous tweet or Melania swatting his hand away or something else really important to the Trump haters.

"The economy shemonomy, what did he tweet last night and what did Chelsea Handler have to say about it!!"
 
Johnnypenso
"The economy shemonomy, what did he tweet last night and what did Chelsea Handler have to say about it!!"
Click to expand...
"Chelsea Handler? What's she done lately?" (Pun intended.)

*checks Google*

Wikipedia bio, "meh," videos from the web, "bleh," movies, "blecch," people also search for, "Ross Matthews? Seriously?!," people also ask, "pfft," top stories, "Here we go..."

Fox News: "Chelsea Handler's most inflammatory tweets and controversial moments"

...

...

Smiley_Smile-ROFL01.gif
 
TexRex
"Chelsea Handler? What's she done lately?" (Pun intended.)

*checks Google*

Wikipedia bio, "meh," videos from the web, "bleh," movies, "blecch," people also search for, "Ross Matthews? Seriously?!," people also ask, "pfft," top stories, "Here we go..."

Fox News: "Chelsea Handler's most inflammatory tweets and controversial moments"

...

...

Smiley_Smile-ROFL01.gif
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you're trying to say to be honest.
 
Joey D
I doubt it since I'm guessing the few jobs brought back won't really put a dent in the massive budget shortcomings we have. The only way to get out of debt is to quit spending more money than is coming in.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. Not to crap on your point (but I will just a little) the last time we cut taxes in a big way revenue went up.
 
Danoff
Totally agree. Not to crap on your point (but I will just a little) the last time we cut taxes in a big way revenue went up.
Click to expand...

Which is a fair point.

I do think reducing spending to further reduce taxes though would probably be even better than banking on additional revenue just to turn around and continue to spend it. It's weird, the old I get and the more money I make, the more I absolutely despise paying taxes and the more I hate the government for spending my money on stupid stuff. I kind of see where Libertarians come from when they say "taxation is theft".
 
Dotini
Aside from increasing the money coming in, there may be yet another way - the dreaded path of currency devaluation and hyperinflation.
Click to expand...

Ah inflation... taxation without representation. Inflation is the only tax I know of that disproportionately hits the poor (unless you count social security as a tax, which is a discussion I'm always up for). Inflation hits everyone you say? No no, it hits people who hold dollars the hardest. And who keeps the majority of their property in dollars? Poor people. Rich people buy houses, stocks, cars, fine artwork, sculptures, other nations' currencies, land, jets... things that don't get hit directly by (and in same cases, are direct hedges against) inflation.

Rich people pay people in dollars, but those dollars are usually set amounts ($30 bucks for mowing my lawn, $100 for cleaning my house, $10 for hand washing my car). It takes a fair amount of inflation before you see those things change, partly because minimum wage introduces a somewhat sticky wage at the bottom. If you weren't really earning your minimum wage before inflation, after inflation you're maybe coming closer but you're still gonna get paid minimum wage.

So who does inflation hit? People with most of their property in dollars, and people with wages that are at a floor prescribed by law... poor people. Who does inflation help? People who borrowed a bunch of money at low interest rates and intend to pay it back with cheaper dollars. Rich people who took million-dollar mortgages and played the market instead of paying down debt.

Inflation doesn't get enough criticism from the left. I kindof sortof expect silence from the right, but the left should really hate it.
 
Danoff
Ah inflation... taxation without representation. Inflation is the only tax I know of that disproportionately hits the poor (unless you count social security as a tax, which is a discussion I'm always up for). Inflation hits everyone you say? No no, it hits people who hold dollars the hardest. And who keeps the majority of their property in dollars? Poor people. Rich people buy houses, stocks, cars, fine artwork, sculptures, other nations' currencies, land, jets... things that don't get hit directly by (and in same cases, are direct hedges against) inflation.

Rich people pay people in dollars, but those dollars are usually set amounts ($30 bucks for mowing my lawn, $100 for cleaning my house, $10 for hand washing my car). It takes a fair amount of inflation before you see those things change, partly because minimum wage introduces a somewhat sticky wage at the bottom. If you weren't really earning your minimum wage before inflation, after inflation you're maybe coming closer but you're still gonna get paid minimum wage.

So who does inflation hit? People with most of their property in dollars, and people with wages that are at a floor prescribed by law... poor people. Who does inflation help? People who borrowed a bunch of money at low interest rates and intend to pay it back with cheaper dollars. Rich people who took million-dollar mortgages and played the market instead of paying down debt.

Inflation doesn't get enough criticism from the left. I kindof sortof expect silence from the right, but the left should really hate it.
Click to expand...


For the record, I hate inflation with a pink and purple passion. I have a ton of cash in addition to my 2 tons of property. Should the dreaded debasement/inflation scenario eventuate, I have bags of gold and silver as a deep fallback.
 
I did like the suggestion that the wall should be funded in its entirely by a GoFundMe or JustGiving page so that not only will it be funded by supporters, supporters will have to put their additional money when their mouths are.

Then in a flight of fantasy that got me wondering on a JustGiving system where there are no direct income taxes but instead you choose to which JustGiving budgets (health, roads, education, defence and so on) to donate to and if you fail to donate your calculated tax amount you go to gaol... or something.

People often personalise their own individial tax and it annoys me. Then again, government departments competing for tax donations does should a little dystopic or Black Mirror.
 
Imari
_99939733_us_federal_spending_2018_640-nc-4.png


I think it's quite interesting to see visually how things like Health, Justice and Education are valued in the US.
Click to expand...
They spend over $1trillion on Medicare and Medicaid alone which isn't included here. Justice spending is for the Justice Department, not "justice". I'd expect most spending on "justice" to be done at the state and local levels same with education etc.
 
Dotini
For the record, I hate inflation with a pink and purple passion. I have a ton of cash in addition to my 2 tons of property. Should the dreaded debasement/inflation scenario eventuate, I have bags of gold and silver as a deep fallback.
Click to expand...


It might be a good idea to have less than a ton of cash and more of something else.

Imari
_99939733_us_federal_spending_2018_640-nc-4.png


I think it's quite interesting to see visually how things like Health, Justice and Education are valued in the US.
Click to expand...

The federal education budget should probably be zero. "Health" is downright confusing to me, as @Johnnypenso mentions. Social safety nets are more than half of the budget.

7305-11-figure-1.png
 
I heard a rather interesting statistic cited by the Author of 'Traveling as a Political Act' this morning. Rick Steves said that more people were killed by terrorists in the 1980's than in in the last decade. He blames the hyperbolic media for creating a culture of fear of traveling, even to popular mainstay European destinations like France. He also said that stastically, you are more likely to be murdered in you own town than your are traveling abroad. He proposes an interesting challenge which you can read about here:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/trav...ces-challenge-american-assumptions/320114002/
 
The last fiscal conservative we had in office was Bill Clinton. Dubya was terrible, Obama was terrible, and Trump looks to follow the last two idiot's act, basically we're doomed. I wonder if we will ever have a balanced budget again.
 
Danoff
Oh now... that's not true. Bill was not a fiscal conservative. Bill's budget was "balanced" for him by a bubble economy.
Click to expand...

That's absolutely not true at all and it's a statement perpetuated by Bill Clinton's critics like the Cato Institute which let facts slip right out the window to favor their ridiculous argument. I am no fan of Bill Clinton but I will give the man credit were it's due.

He signed The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 into law which raised taxes on top earners. He reformed the Tanf program, cut spending, made welfare more accountable. He had a budget surplus from Fiscal years1998-2001. His final four budgets were balance budgets with surpluses. He signed the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 which lowered taxes on small business. Under Clinton, federal spending fell, defense spending fell and taxes revenues were increased. I could go on but you get the point.
 
DDastardly00
He signed The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 into law which raised taxes on top earners.
Click to expand...

That's fiscal conservatism?

DDastardly00
He reformed the Tanf program, cut spending, made welfare more accountable. He had a budget surplus from Fiscal years1998-2001. His final four budgets were balance budgets with surpluses. He signed the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 which lowered taxes on small business. Under Clinton, federal spending fell, defense spending fell and taxes revenues were increased. I could go on but you get the point.
Click to expand...

So... Cato actually kindof agrees with you: https://www.cato.org/blog/king-fiscal-squeeze-isbill-clinton

They point out that while clinton presided over spending cuts, many of the cuts were originated from the other side. I'd credit Clinton on that one too because it means he was willing to work with republicans for the benefit of the country rather than dig in, as is practically expected these days. The article points out that the government % of GDP shrunk by 4%. Not bad.

Let's see what GDP did during that time:

US GDP 1993: 6.9T
US GDP 2001: 10.6T

So, that's actually a growing government then. It's fair to say that other presidents out-spend GDP growth (which is pretty much true), and that Clinton was an exception. But you have to keep in mind that the US economy was in a bubble, and was growing wildly due to the boom of the internet. All Clinton had to do was NOT go nuts spending (which turns out to be difficult when you look at other presidents).
 
Danoff
That's fiscal conservatism?



So... Cato actually kindof agrees with you: https://www.cato.org/blog/king-fiscal-squeeze-isbill-clinton

They point out that while clinton presided over spending cuts, many of the cuts were originated from the other side. I'd credit Clinton on that one too because it means he was willing to work with republicans for the benefit of the country rather than dig in, as is practically expected these days. The article points out that the government % of GDP shrunk by 4%. Not bad.

Let's see what GDP did during that time:

US GDP 1993: 6.9T
US GDP 2001: 10.6T

So, that's actually a growing government then. It's fair to say that other presidents out-spend GDP growth (which is pretty much true), and that Clinton was an exception. But you have to keep in mind that the US economy was in a bubble, and was growing wildly due to the boom of the internet. All Clinton had to do was NOT go nuts spending (which turns out to be difficult when you look at other presidents).
Click to expand...

Clinton increased revenue in a number of ways (not just by raising taxes) and he spent less than what they took in, by definition that is fiscal conservatism. Now, was Clinton a fiscal conservative in the same vein as Calvin Coolidge or Theodore Roosevelt? No, absolutely not, but those were different economies with a different set of circumstances and it would be like crossing a minefield trying to compare them.

The dotcom bubble of the late 1990's was certainly helpful to the GDP, but not giving credit to the reductions in federal spending and defense spending (among other factors) is leaving out a portion of the larger picture of why we had budget surpluses during those years; which the revisionists seem hell-bent on doing. The revisionists also conveniently forget or blatantly omit that The Tax payer Relief Act of 1997 also help to fuel the Dotcom explosion in the first place by lowering the capital gains tax which spurred more investments in that emerging market during those years.
 
DDastardly00
Clinton increased revenue in a number of ways (not just by raising taxes) and he spent less than what they took in, by definition that is fiscal conservatism. Now, was Clinton a fiscal conservative in the same vein as Calvin Coolidge or Theodore Roosevelt? No, absolutely not, but those were different economies with a different set of circumstances and it would be like crossing a minefield trying to compare them.

The dotcom bubble of the late 1990's was certainly helpful to the GDP, but not giving credit to the reductions in federal spending and defense spending (among other factors) is leaving out a portion of the larger picture of why we had budget surpluses during those years; which the revisionists seem hell-bent on doing. The revisionists also conveniently forget or blatantly omit that The Tax payer Relief Act of 1997 also help to fuel the Dotcom explosion in the first place by lowering the capital gains tax which spurred more investments in that emerging market during those years.
Click to expand...

Eh, you're talking about a GDP that grew by what... 50% during Clinton's term in office? Yea I think it's fair to downplay a 4% reduction in government as a percentage of GDP. When clinton took office the deficit was $0.2T. Government revenue was $1.1T. When clinton left office, government revenue was $1.9T and the deficit was -0.2T. So revenue went up by 0.8T (booming economies will do that), and government expenses went UP by only $0.4T. When clinton took office, government expenses must have been $0.9T, and when he leave office government expenses must have been $1.3T. That's a 44% growth in government spending during his 8 years, which was not a fast enough growth to keep pace with how fast the economy was growing - resulting in a surplus. Him sitting back enjoying his interns instead of running up big NEW spending bills was all it took to create a surplus.

This is pretty much what I said. No revisionism, just numbers and a booming (and bubbling) economy. It is shocking, actually, how much of government revenue is driven by the economy rather than tax hikes. The easy way to collect more money is to preside over a booming economy, and the easy way to run trillion dollar deficits (Obama) is to preside over a bust. Tax policy is a little more in the noise. It's more interesting from the perspective of what it does to economic growth than it is in terms of how much it might bring in given the tax bracket adjustments. That's why you can find examples where taxes were increased and revenue goes down, or taxes are decreased (much more rare) and revenue goes up - because the economy drives those numbers in a big way.
 
Last edited:
Danoff
Eh, you're talking about a GDP that grew by what... 50% during Clinton's term in office? Yea I think it's fair to downplay a 4% reduction in government as a percentage of GDP. When clinton took office the deficit was $0.2T. Government revenue was $1.1T. When clinton left office, government revenue was $1.9T and the deficit was -0.2T. So revenue went up by 0.8T (booming economies will do that), and government expenses went UP by only $0.4T. When clinton took office, government expenses must have been $0.9T, and when he leave office government expenses must have been $1.3T. That's a 44% growth in government spending during his 8 years, which was not a fast enough growth to keep pace with how fast the economy was growing - resulting in a surplus. Him sitting back enjoying his interns instead of running up big NEW spending bills was all it took to create a surplus.

This is pretty much what I said. No revisionism, just numbers and a booming (and bubbling) economy. It is shocking, actually, how much of government revenue is driven by the economy rather than tax hikes. The easy way to collect more money is to preside over a booming economy, and the easy way to run trillion dollar deficits (Obama) is to preside over a bust. Tax policy is a little more in the noise. It's more interesting from the perspective of what it does to economic growth than it is in terms of how much it might bring in given the tax bracket adjustments. That's why you can find examples where taxes were increased and revenue goes down, or taxes are decreased (much more rare) and revenue goes up - because the economy drives those numbers in a big way.
Click to expand...

Reagan presided over a booming economy and the personal computer revolution, which I will directly compare to the dot.com revolution, (with the personal computer revolution winning in terms of importance) and yet despite this, he still managed to add 1.86 Trillion to the deficit, a 186% increase from the 998 Billion left over from the Carter administration. A lot of presidents have presided over booming economies yet still added to the deficit, Bill Clinton however did not. And you're still not giving any credit to Clinton's tax policies that helped fuel the dotcom revolution in the first place.

It's also worth mentioning that I am not arguing that Bill Clinton was a good example of a fiscal conservative, that was never my point at all, but the fact is, he was the last fiscal conservative to hold the office of the POTUS. Every administration since Clinton has not only added to the deficit, but also outspent the previous administration by large percentages. And so far Trump looks like he will continue this abhorrent trend, which is exactly what we don't need.
 

Latest Posts

Back