THE BEAUTIFUL BUDGET

by DesertCat m

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

fred

Federal Receipts as Percent of Gross Domestic Product

Second, increasing rates never produces as much additional revenue as static analysis predicts, as it depresses econo... See full post

You can but you get blood in the water (like 5-10 years of no per Capita GDP growth).

That's what happened in italy.

Anyway the USA COULD slightly raise payroll taxes every year by a very low amount (like 0.2%- 0.3%/ year) up until they are 18-20% for social security and 6-7% for Medicare.

Given the deficits are caused only by entitlements, and no one wants to cut them, payroll taxes have to increase.

You can also raise the cap upon which SS payroll taxes are paid

trump is essentially the tea party president. And lots more everyday conservatives&politicians cared about the budget back then besides just tea party people. Get real.

Initially, when the original report was created, starting 2020 the figure was 40%... over the nextfour years the fractionalization continued and by the time Biden left off the percentage was actually 80% of all currency ever created.

If anyone tries to use the m2 money supply as a basis, you'll be well advised to reevaluate because during the Biden administration, the fed ceased reporting m2 supply figures.

Make false claim
Get corrected
Double down with an even more wild rejection of reality

Yeah, I said exactly that in the post you quoted

There is a lot at play here on what caused a lot of these #s to go the way they did.

Defense budgets are baked in for a few years and when Obama took over, he was in the midst of a ME disaster. Obama increased troops in 09-10 but then the drawdown began in 2011.

But it also goes back to what Obama debated in his speech against Romney when he talked about having less subs and bayonets when questioned about military capability. When your military investments evolve from old school machinery to drones and automated cyberwarfare and intelligence and such, your total costs isn't' going to be the same when you don't have the same overhead in manufactoring and logistics. The strength of the military really doesn't have much to do with the money spent.

by Luciom m

by DesertCat m

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

fred

Federal Receipts as Percent of Gross Domestic Product

Second, increasing rates never produces as much additional revenue as static analysis predicts, as it depresses econo... See full post

You can but you get blood in the ... See full post

That probably describes what has to happen unless cuts to entitlements are made. My worry is that it will lead to reduced employment and output as workers cost 20% more than they are paid, leading to fewer jobs and fewer willing workers.

lol.

trump is a lot to the left of the median republican fiscally, while the tea party was to the far right of the median republican fiscally.

tea party people would love to cut medicaid and food stamps to 0.

as the only remaining real Americans they actually feel disgusted at the idea of anyone being a parasite of the state. for them, as real Americans, it's morally horrific that state welfare exists and it should be exclusively private charities dealing with the poors.

the entire edifice of federal welfare shouldn't exist at all for tea party republicans. the concept itself is unAmerican.

trump doesn't care at all

I never asked about Clinton . Clinton had balanced budgets

The reality that we need to face is what the Ukraine did with drones . I am just glad China hasn’t bought land surrounding military bases in the USA were they could do the same thing
Oh wait

The best thing they could do is scrap the F35

First quibble is that AI is an appeal to authority fallacy, cite sources, not a pattern matching algorithm prone to hallucinations. Second quibble, its conclusion is debatable. Standard oil was broken up because muckrakers hated the power of large corporations, not because oil prices were increasing.

But the real point is oil prices plummeted from the 1870s levels to when it was broken up, and that was directly driven by standard oil and the economies of scale he built. And the improved refining created far more uses for it.

Obamas mistake was not pulling US troops from Europe and the Middle East. He continued to massively subsidize wealthy Europeans and Theocracies, and the only benefits were maintaining his personal popularity with both to ensure lots of donations to his foundations and a dubious Nobel Prize.

If Trump ever concedes to leaving office at the end of his term he won’t be getting those donations from Europe, but he’ll be backing up the truck in the Middle East.

Obama had the genius understanding that the moment shale became a thing, Europe and the middle east became forever worthless to the USA.

he didn't have the balls to draw that genius hunch to it's necessary conclusion though.

but the Asian pivot made sense.

While their profits do trickle down and benefit consumers, that's not all their profits do. Since the GFC corps have spent trillions on buybacks, etc. the benefits of which don't trickle down to the workers either in wages or less expensive goods. A lot of profit also goes towards productivity enhancing technology like automation, AI, marketing and supply chain optimization. But that is to cut costs, reduce labor, and outperform the competition rather than to deliver tangible quality of life improvements to consumers. So while some profits do trickle down to consumer benefits, over the last 25 years or so, I'd say most profits don't. But that's not really businesses' fault. They're just doing what they do, just like shareholders seeking maximum gains. Instead it's more about the Fed , gov policy and tax codes incentivizing those flows of profits away from innovation.

Billionaires and large corporations did not invent internet shopping, EVs or the principles behind space travel.

They are good at stamping their name on such things however, and in recent decades such entities have become exceptional at stopping other people from developing ideas, concepts and patents.

This principle has become so enshrined, that these days the prevailing business model of tech startups is to develop an idea to the point where it can be sold to a much larger entity.

Yes basically that's the path now. Y-Combinator > a few funding rounds > the development of some concept or even just potentially viable thing > sell

I get it though and have seen it firsthand. It's hard to hold when someone's waving $30m in your face for a 5-year old company that your 30-year-old CEO started for $300k and is nowhere near profitable, with only 6 months of runway. Next time I'll ask for a bigger percentage.

For sure, I don't dispute that. It is hard to justify spending a large portion of your life on a maybe, when a very comfortable certainty is on the table.

At the same time, I do think that creativity suffers. More and more technology development is aimed at improvement rather than disruption. And I don't think it is only a matter of technology climbing to levels that makes disruption less possible, I think it is also about big entities being more prone to traditional thinking, more averse to risk / disruption and that they often focus more on problems that might occur than possibilities that could open.

The inflation whores and derangement addicts are eating crow ONCE AGAIN...

Plz elaborate

CPI was 2.4 instead of 2.5 so the rightys are taking a victory lap for some reason

The thing about tariffs causing inflation is that you have to actually implement the tariffs and not just threaten to implement tariffs that then don't get implemented

tariffs are implemented though.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...

CPI is a lagging indicator

10% tariffs started in April and some of the others started in may

We will see the supply chain ripple next quarter and then the China tariffs the quarter after

It will require some serious economic voodoo for tariffs not to be inflationary.

not necessarily, try to think second order effects.

First order is headline prices of the tariff-ed items go up, definitionally inflationary.

Second order is people are poorer because of increased fiscal intake which depresses demand thoughout the economy which is definitionally deflationary.

Raising taxes keeping expenditure the same is definitionally deflationary (that's true for all taxes). You suck nominal demand out of people pockets, quite literally.

Problem identifying tariffs effects in a vacuum will be that it is coupled with increasing deficits (not only if the BBB passes, even if it doesn't because of automatic increases in entitlement expenditures and interest payments) and the closure of the border and deportation efforts.

Closing the border and deporting people , like tariffs, has both inflationary and deflationary effects, and yet again we will be stuck in an impossible-to-measure-in-a-vacuum combination of different effects.

So no voodoo needed, people will be able to claim tariffs and deportations are deflationary, or inflationary, or neither, depending on what they want to claim, just focusing on the effects they prefer to focus on.

So paradoxically at the end the actual inflation numbers are all we have got to judge the combined effects of all ongoing dynamics.