THE BEAUTIFUL BUDGET
I don't think it's very beautiful, from what I've heard about it.
No need to increase the military budget, let alone a la
None of those things improve anyone’s living standards outside of the edge case of STARLINK in an area where no other internet service exists
I think you can both successfully argue that rich people aren't taxed accordingly and that many of those investments have helped everyday Americans by a large amount.
We have smartphones that offers a landline, camera, recorder, gps, flashlight.
We have Amazon offering lowest possible prices with insane delivery for rural and disabled folks, reduces gas, time, away from kids.
We have Evs with far better emission standards, lower lifetime maintenance - soon to be self driving, again for the disabled and everyone else.
But many westerners are spoiled. And a lot of spoiled people bitch. They whine about transgender athletics winning a high school bad mitten tourney or became brainwashed into thinking that they are going to be one of the next 30 unjustified police shootings each year because CNN needs to fend off bankruptcy - Despite neither holding a candle to how many of them will die from watching their political pundits talking about who will win the 2068 predental election while driving.
I wouldn't want to live in Palestine right now. Or Mexico or Russia or Ukraine, or most of the world.
None of those things improve anyone’s living standards outside of the edge case of STARLINK in an area where no other internet service exists
everything people buy improves their living standards.
it isn't you who gets to decide what's best for them. it's them, by their own revealed preferences.
if they buy something it means everything else on sale in the world they had potential access to was worse for them than that.
Advocating for the most efficient tax system that produces the highest GDP and income growth rates benefits everyone.
Not if there is large income inequality .
What good having a high gdp if like 60% of the population have no gain in gdp per capita ?
No I reject that premise .
A billionaires becoming a trillionaire do not necessarily help everyone .
We have a strong middle class that's in no danger of fading away. The problem is those evil billionaires keep inventing new things like super cheap internet shopping, the first successful EVs and reducing the cost of space access by 90%.We need to limit the ability of people to get obscenely rich by inventing things that improve everyone's living standards. Then we can have a m
U mixing up higher living standard from thechnology with economic growth.
Here is a simple question .
Would you be ok if only 1% of the population would see profit from the economy ?
All others would gain 0 profits and they all should shut up because their life improved due solely to technology ?
Sound like a derivative of « you will own nothing but u will be happy ».
I think you can both successfully argue that rich people aren't taxed accordingly and that many of those investments have helped everyday Americans by a large amount. We have smartphones that offers a landline, camera, recorder, gps, flashlight.We have Amazon offering lowest possible prices with insane delivery for rural and disabled folks, reduces gas, time, away from kids.We
Fwiw many Canadians and europeens probably would add the US to your list :p
But personally I don’t care how much a billionaires makes in profit , until I see the entire ocean rises up but only couple of boats follows the tide and the rest of the entire fleet are drowning ….
everything people buy improves their living standards.
it isn't you who gets to decide what's best for them. it's them, by their own revealed preferences.
if they buy something it means everything else on sale in the world they had potential access to was worse for them than that.
That is no untrue ……
Its setting in that he spent 250 million+ and torched whatever reputation he had left to play the useful idiot on the global stage. Whoops!
Of course I wouldn’t be okay with your entirely made up scenario where only 1% benefits from gains in the economy.
But in reality everyone benefits over time. We need entrepreneurs to invest and build new businesses that raise our standard of living. Otherwise we end up like India, where incomes are much more equal because everyone is poor. That’s the end result of focusing on income inequality.
John D Rockefeller became one of the richest men in history, by slashing energy costs and vastly increasing everyone’s standard of living. He was born in a era of sailing ships and horses being the dominant modes of transport, and raised in a tiny home typical for the era, heated by firewood and with gaps in its walls large enough that during snow storms he’d wake to a snowdrift covering his bed.
He died with the majority of Americans driving cars, heating their homes with oil, and with airplanes filling the skies in a large part due to how he advanced oil refining improving its quality, and reducing its price by over 90%.
Advocating for the most efficient tax system that produces the highest GDP and income growth rates benefits everyone.
Again with the politics 😀
Even Elon finally gets how bad the budget is.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/03/technology/elon-musk-criticizes-republican-legislation.html
Voters have no choice. Either vote for the party that believes deficits and debt don’t matter, or vote for the party that only pretends like they do, and only during election campaigns.
Even Elon finally gets how bad the budget is.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/03/techn...
Voters have no choice. Either vote how the party that believes deficits and debt don't matter, or vote for the party that pretends like they do, but only during election campaigns.
The democratic party is not in favor of deficits. Its just less of a priority than providing care for people (like with Medicaid, Veteran care, Food stamps, Social Security, Medicare, etc.). Democrats typically vote to increase tax rates for the wealthy to reduce deficits and under Clinton were the only party in my lifetime that actually had no deficits. Democrats are also the party that will reduce military spending.
The republican party is split about this. There are some republicans who prefer reducing deficits. But the way they want to do it is by reducing spending (kind of like what Musk is all about now). Others in the party are all about reducing taxes for the wealthy and corporations because those are the people that contribute to their political campaigns. They also want to increase military spending (for similar reasons). Those people don't really care about deficits. Under George W Bush deficits skyrocketed specifically because Republicans didn't have the votes to reduce spending but they were able to decrease taxes for the wealthy. Similarly under Trump his first term where deficits went up more than ever before. It is about to happen again for the same reasons.
The democratic party is not in favor of deficits. Its just less of a priority than providing care for people (like with Medicaid, Veteran care, Food stamps, Social Security, Medicare, etc.). Democrats typically vote to increase tax rates for the wealthy to reduce deficits and under Clinton were the only party in my lifetime that actually had no deficits. Democrats are also t
So when you say Democrats are the party that will reduce defense spending did they do that under Joe Biden or Obama
The democratic party is not in favor of deficits. Its just less of a priority than providing care for people (like with Medicaid, Veteran care, Food stamps, Social Security, Medicare, etc.). Democrats typically vote to increase tax rates for the wealthy to reduce deficits and under Clinton were the only party in my lifetime that actually had no deficits. Democrats are also t
What do you mean with the bold? the deficit in 2007 was 1.2% of gdp lol.
And again what do you mean with the second bold? the deficit was higher in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 than it was every year in 2017, 2018, 2019.
I mean are you really claiming the GFC in 2008 and covid in 2020, both happening the last year of a republican president term, and both requiring massive deficits necessarily those years, which got passed by both parties in congress, are deficits caused by republican political preferences?
What do you mean with the bold? the deficit in 2007 was 1.2% of gdp lol.And again what do you mean with the second bold? the deficit was higher in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 than it was every year in 2017, 2018, 2019.I mean are you really claiming the GFC in 2008 and covid in 2020, both happening the last year of a republican president term, and both requiring massive deficits nece
George W Bush caused 2 Trillion dollars of spending in Afghanistan (over the next 18 years). The war in Iraq (for no reason whatsoever) was also expensive. Tax cuts as well. George W Bush inherited a surplus from Clinton and then undid it. George W Bush's catastrophic economic meltdown was the primary cause for Obama's deficits (Obama saved the country economically with his 800 Billion dollar bill including auto manufacturers).
Trump inherited a solid economy from Obama and basically if you look at the charts his growth was an extension of Obama's right up until covid hit. And then another economic disaster. Trump's 1st term tax cuts will be responsible for the largest 10 year hit on deficits ever. Except if his current bill passes then it could get even worse.
So when you say Democrats are the party that will reduce defense spending did they do that under Joe Biden or Obama
They actually did under Obama and Biden wasn't terrible in terms of % of GDP.
[URL="https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/united-states/military-spending-defense-budget"]Here is an article that has yearly spending graphs
[/URL]
What you see is under Clinton military spending went down on an annual basis for 7 years until 2000 where it went up just under 1992.
Under Obama military spending went up in 2009 & 2010 & 2011 and then it went down each year through 2016 (OK 2016 was slightly more than 2015). Ultimately the 2016 military budget was just under the 2008 budget Obama inherited.
Under Biden military spending did go up by about 3.45% which is very low overall. This article didn't include 2023 & 2024.
I think this article deals with the defense budget which you can see under Biden did go down a bit. The Afghan spending must have contributed to the overall military spending. So getting out of Afghanistan under Biden did help reduce military spending. But the Ukraine support is what made military spending go up under Biden in my opinion.
^ Bullshyte...
the black budget items exploded in those era's. Obama was the first Trillion dollar budget president... and Biden printed 40% of all USD ever created in his tenure.
thinking that the party of 'the South' is budget minded is idiotic
Trump actually printed ~45% of all USD ever created and Bidens share is less than 10
Sorry, 45% of all USD ever created was printed under Trump is a much more accurate way of presenting the data
Of course I wouldn't be okay with your entirely made up scenario where only 1% benefits from gains in the economy.
Not true .
They ant even barely beat inflation from 1980 .
My hypothetical wasn’t that far off as u believe it is .
https://www.forbes.com/sites/katharinabu...
Between 1970 and 2021, the share of U.S. aggregate income earned by the middle class shrunk from formerly 62% to just 42%. At the same time, aggregate earnings by those considered high income increased from 29% to 50%
And again with rocketfeller , even with less earning the entire society would still had the same benefit , again it’s called technology .
Technology benefits isn’t tied to how much CEO earns .
FWIW from AI search :
5. The Impact of Rockefeller's Monopoly:
By 1900, Standard Oil controlled over 90% of U.S. oil production.
This dominance allowed Rockefeller to maintain high prices and reduce competition.
Eventually, Standard Oil was broken up by the government under the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1911.
And at that time, it was literally another world.
But it’s a matter of political aim we are talking about .
U belibethere shiukdnt be any cap or barrier because it is always beneficial to everyone when in show u you it isn’t even for the median ….
Yes 1% was an exaggeration but making the point of I don’t believe in trickle down economy so aiming at the highest gdp isn’t a real good goal economically .
I would prefer an economy that at least make the median population a higher earning that at least could beat inflation shrug .
That is a successful economy to me .
Ps: the 1960-70 made some big changes and appreciate the life of many people due to technology and yet those ceo for example were making 30-40 the median salary , not 300 like today ….
Didn’t prevent anyone to have a better life then compare to 1940s and even more so 1880s…
George W Bush caused 2 Trillion dollars of spending in Afghanistan (over the next 18 years). The war in Iraq (for no reason whatsoever) was also expensive. Tax cuts as well. George W Bush inherited a surplus from Clinton and then undid it. George W Bush's catastrophic economic meltdown was the primary cause for Obama's deficits (Obama saved the country economically with his
Obama could have pulled the troops from Afghanistan on day one.
So no, you can only attribute the expenses there under Bush term to him.
From Jan 20 2009 every dollar spent in Afghanistan was entirely and exclusively spent because Obama wanted to spend it (till Jan 20 2017 ofc).
Tax cuts (??), Afghanistan and everything, and the deficit was 1.2% in 2007.
The great financial crisis wasn't caused by the president. Not even partisan hacks claim that.
Deficits are decided by Congress btw.
Yes trump economy was Obama 2.0. o have said the same myself many times.
Which means your claim that he caused unprecedented deficits in his first term is simply absurd.
His tax cuts costed very little. And the non partisan CBO said the same.
COVID was a disaster because of the democrats reaction to it. Everything in the country could have been fully opened and operational as if COVID never existed in September 2020, like de Santis ordered k. Florida.
It was only the debauched monstrosity of democrats keeping stuff closed that prolonged the problem.
Who remembers all of the conservatives during the Obama years--Not 1 more dollar! Not 1! Think of the Founding Fathers blahblahblah
Today--Seriously, Listen guys we need to dump like 2T into the debt per year and there might be like 5T on top of that but really, who knows? We're just gonna splash cash around like crazy and figure it out when we sober up 😀
Clowns.
Even Elon finally gets how bad the budget is.https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/03/techn...Voters have no choice. Either vote how the party that believes deficits and debt don't matter, or vote for the party that pretends like they do, but only during election campaigns.
The democratic party is not in favor of deficits. Its just less of a priority than providing care for people (like with Medicaid, Veteran care, Food stamp
The democrats believe in spending first, and that’s how you get deficits.
You can’t tax your way out of deficits. First tax receipts as a percentage of GDP are near all time highs, it’s spending that’s at record highs.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S
Second, increasing rates never produces as much additional revenue as static analysis predicts, as it depresses economic activity.
