FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

oops he was lying.


https://www.factcheck.org/2025/05/trumps-growing-exaggeration-of-u-s-investments/

---

Come on, you know no one actually meant trillions of dollars. You are being unreasonable, now.

Trump is the most effective President in the 250 years of the US existence. No body has ever seen anything like this. Don't go by what actually happens, DOGE is saving us trillions and we trillions of new investment. With all these savings , tariff money and investment next budget will be balanced and deficit coming down, right?

---

You are right. A man cant get info from the white house any more. Its no better now than a circus poster. Wasnt long ago it was fact filled
Thsnks for correcting me
The 27t came directly from the white page with big
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP on the front page.

Here it is. https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/04/100-days-of-investment-5-trillion-in-new-investment-fuels-americas-future/

---

That's $9T as of April. It's more than 2x that now that the EU deal is done.

Whatever else can be said about Trump, he does have a knack for inspiring all these companies and countries (who we are told quietly hate him, as all normal people do) to line up to make public announcements of outlandish nonsensical investments. Do they do that to make watch the guy smile? Are they just pandering to Maga-land? Inquiring minds want to know.

C + I + G +/- T = GDP. The "I" part is investment. It typically runs in the 20% range. So on a nominal GDP of $30T, I would be approx $6B. The guy has as much as 4.5x that pledged by countries & corporations. Is it really your position that all $27T is smoke & mirrors & none of it will ever happen? How much of it has to happen for our economy to benefit?

Be specific please.

---

Let's keep it simple and measurable.

How much did the US owe when Donald took office?
How much will the US owe when his FY 26 budget is approved or reconciled, because we can't approve a budget anymore.

Will the deficit be higher or lower?

Will the budget be balanced or lower?


Simple measurables. All the DOGE tweets, all the "commitments" to invest, all the monthly revenue projections (didn't know that was a thing usually we talk quarterly or Fiscal Year, but...) and all the rhetoric mean nothing if the numbers don't move.

So, based on where we are what are the numbers? No macro level discussions, no theory, or no lectures on how we don't understand big boy world... WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS ON THE LEDGER SHEET SHOWING?

---

THE NUMBERS ON THE LEGER SHEET ARE SHOWING REDUCED GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES AND RISING GOVERNMENT REVENUE. (to include a SURPLUS in June).

6 months in, we're making progress and you're *****ing like nothing at all has happened (except that Donald has hurt your feelings).

---

Hurt my feelings? What do feelings have to do with any of this? Look at his track record and you trust him implicitly.
His track record in office is superior to any elected POTUS of my lifetime. Dude makes the right promises and leaves it all on the field trying to deliver on those promises.

Who is the one that is letting their feelings lead the way?
You. Dude drives you crazy.

The last time he was in DC he was the precurser to Congress being stormed and the VP being asked to NOT honor the election slate.
See?

Go to Atlantic City and look around. Read about former USFL owners views. The guy has a history of starting strong and crashing and burning. No feelings about it, it is just pure caution after watching him for a lifetime.
Dude is rocking it right now.
And it's driving you crazy.

It is still deficit spending.
The most unserious critique of any US elected official at this time is that they voted for deficit spending. It is not possible to get from where we are to balance in a single budget cycle.

It does nothing to lower the debt load. There are semantic games going on and you know it.
It's only semantics if you do not intended to do anything about it. Dude has cut spending and raised revenues and has a stimulus package in place and is taking a number of policy steps that will lower the cost of doing business. That is what a serious plan to tackle the deficit spending problem looks like. What's unserious is suggesting that we can simply make one snip tomorrow to balance the budget. The votes are simply not there. The implications too uncertain. Our fiscal problems are an elephant that cannot be devoured in a single gulp. Improvements will be incremental, involve fits & starts, ups & downs, victories & setbacks over a period of years. Within that context, going an average monthly deficit of $150B or so to a surplus in June should be highly encouraging to any reasonable person. Shouldn't it?

Playing this "discretionary non-defense" vs "discretionary defense" spending game. It is a shift of how spending is occurring, not a "savings".
You do not understand what you are talking about. Anything that's not an entitlement is discretionary. Within the discretionary realm, Defense is the largest single component. Ergo, it makes completely logical conceptual sense when discussing budget cuts to break the discretionary realm in to "defense' and "non-defense" components.

It can't be a savings as the total budget is higher than FY 25 and it is deficit because it exceeds revenue. Those are facts, not feelings.
LOL again the false dilemma. Reducing spending and raising revenues LOWERS deficits. Lowering deficits is a prerequisite to balancing budgets. What we are seeing right now is progress. You are saying that progress is immaterial until we balance the budget.

Geez, just admit it that you don't care about the deficit and deficit spending under Trump. You are good with raising the deficit if the spending is on what YOU want or like. Than it is ok. If the Dems do it and the spending is on social programs, it is the end of our Nation and civil war coming (remember last year's dramatics?)
Geez, just admit that your antipathy to Trump's shenanigans make it impossible for you to recognize that his shenanigans are having positive impacts on our fiscal problems.

---

Dude. Seriously. Seek help.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

oops he was lying.


https://www.factcheck.org/2025/05/trumps-growing-exaggeration-of-u-s-investments/

---

Come on, you know no one actually meant trillions of dollars. You are being unreasonable, now.

Trump is the most effective President in the 250 years of the US existence. No body has ever seen anything like this. Don't go by what actually happens, DOGE is saving us trillions and we trillions of new investment. With all these savings , tariff money and investment next budget will be balanced and deficit coming down, right?

---

You are right. A man cant get info from the white house any more. Its no better now than a circus poster. Wasnt long ago it was fact filled
Thsnks for correcting me
The 27t came directly from the white page with big
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP on the front page.

Here it is. https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/04/100-days-of-investment-5-trillion-in-new-investment-fuels-americas-future/

---

That's $9T as of April. It's more than 2x that now that the EU deal is done.

Whatever else can be said about Trump, he does have a knack for inspiring all these companies and countries (who we are told quietly hate him, as all normal people do) to line up to make public announcements of outlandish nonsensical investments. Do they do that to make watch the guy smile? Are they just pandering to Maga-land? Inquiring minds want to know.

C + I + G +/- T = GDP. The "I" part is investment. It typically runs in the 20% range. So on a nominal GDP of $30T, I would be approx $6B. The guy has as much as 4.5x that pledged by countries & corporations. Is it really your position that all $27T is smoke & mirrors & none of it will ever happen? How much of it has to happen for our economy to benefit?

Be specific please.

---

Let's keep it simple and measurable.

How much did the US owe when Donald took office?
How much will the US owe when his FY 26 budget is approved or reconciled, because we can't approve a budget anymore.

Will the deficit be higher or lower?

Will the budget be balanced or lower?


Simple measurables. All the DOGE tweets, all the "commitments" to invest, all the monthly revenue projections (didn't know that was a thing usually we talk quarterly or Fiscal Year, but...) and all the rhetoric mean nothing if the numbers don't move.

So, based on where we are what are the numbers? No macro level discussions, no theory, or no lectures on how we don't understand big boy world... WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS ON THE LEDGER SHEET SHOWING?

---

THE NUMBERS ON THE LEGER SHEET ARE SHOWING REDUCED GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES AND RISING GOVERNMENT REVENUE. (to include a SURPLUS in June).

6 months in, we're making progress and you're *****ing like nothing at all has happened (except that Donald has hurt your feelings).

---

Hurt my feelings? What do feelings have to do with any of this? Look at his track record and you trust him implicitly.
His track record in office is superior to any elected POTUS of my lifetime. Dude makes the right promises and leaves it all on the field trying to deliver on those promises.

Who is the one that is letting their feelings lead the way?
You. Dude drives you crazy.

The last time he was in DC he was the precurser to Congress being stormed and the VP being asked to NOT honor the election slate.
See?

Go to Atlantic City and look around. Read about former USFL owners views. The guy has a history of starting strong and crashing and burning. No feelings about it, it is just pure caution after watching him for a lifetime.
Dude is rocking it right now.
And it's driving you crazy.

It is still deficit spending.
The most unserious critique of any US elected official at this time is that they voted for deficit spending. It is not possible to get from where we are to balance in a single budget cycle.

It does nothing to lower the debt load. There are semantic games going on and you know it.
It's only semantics if you do not intended to do anything about it. Dude has cut spending and raised revenues and has a stimulus package in place and is taking a number of policy steps that will lower the cost of doing business. That is what a serious plan to tackle the deficit spending problem looks like. What's unserious is suggesting that we can simply make one snip tomorrow to balance the budget. The votes are simply not there. The implications too uncertain. Our fiscal problems are an elephant that cannot be devoured in a single gulp. Improvements will be incremental, involve fits & starts, ups & downs, victories & setbacks over a period of years. Within that context, going an average monthly deficit of $150B or so to a surplus in June should be highly encouraging to any reasonable person. Shouldn't it?

Playing this "discretionary non-defense" vs "discretionary defense" spending game. It is a shift of how spending is occurring, not a "savings".
You do not understand what you are talking about. Anything that's not an entitlement is discretionary. Within the discretionary realm, Defense is the largest single component. Ergo, it makes completely logical conceptual sense when discussing budget cuts to break the discretionary realm in to "defense' and "non-defense" components.

It can't be a savings as the total budget is higher than FY 25 and it is deficit because it exceeds revenue. Those are facts, not feelings.
LOL again the false dilemma. Reducing spending and raising revenues LOWERS deficits. Lowering deficits is a prerequisite to balancing budgets. What we are seeing right now is progress. You are saying that progress is immaterial until we balance the budget.

Geez, just admit it that you don't care about the deficit and deficit spending under Trump. You are good with raising the deficit if the spending is on what YOU want or like. Than it is ok. If the Dems do it and the spending is on social programs, it is the end of our Nation and civil war coming (remember last year's dramatics?)
Geez, just admit that your antipathy to Trump's shenanigans make it impossible for you to recognize that his shenanigans are having positive impacts on our fiscal problems.

---

Dude. Seriously. Seek help.

---

We are not seeing any of his great saving effects, we are hearing about them in tweets.

But this budget raises spending and the deficit, it simply moves it from discretions non-military to discretionary defense the overall spend is higher.

You and the other MAGA were railing on the lack of a balanced budget, runaway spending and the deficit as being the death of our Nation 6 months ago. Now, it is a non-issue?

This budget that is "saving" raises the deficit anywhere from 2.8T to 3.4T and the debt ceiling will be increased to 4T.

You guys are falling for the marketing more than the substance. But, I think you are more part of the marketing. Love your tactic anytime someone calls out Trump, they need help. Yawn...

Quote:

---

Are we all about to watch Maxwell exonerate Trump, then get pardoned? Im not sure i have enough popcorn.

---

I think you're getting ready to watch the Maxwell exonerate everyone and get pardoned show.

While Trump has been good on the closing the border, deportations are nowhere near the levels they need to be. At current rates, only 25% of the people Biden let in will be deported by 2028, and the 30 million who were here at the start of Biden's presidency won't be touched

Killing USAID was brilliant, although I'm not sure just how many of those cockroaches are going to go scurrying under the State Department's umbrella. If enough do, it may end up being a shell game.

Tariffs were a good idea, but the execution was terrible.

The national debt and debt to gdp ratio continue to grow at unsustainable rates under his administration.

He has bought the nation some time, but what I have seen so far isn't nearly enough to change the destination.

whiterock said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

So...there is a list...but it's a fake one?

REPORTER: Doesn't the AG have to tell you if your name is in the Epstein files?

TRUMP: Well, I haven't been overly interested in it. It's a hoax that's been built up way beyond proportion. Those files were run by the worst scum on earth -- Comey, Garland, Biden. They can easily… pic.twitter.com/zh6joLKh0r

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 28, 2025

---

great play there. "...same guys that ran RussiaGate ran EpsteinGate...." It taints whatever might be bad for Republicans as just more abuse of the system by partisan Democrats, and whatever is bad for Democrats as just more partisan abuse of the system by partisan Democrats.

---

Disagree

Trump needs to release the files immediately.

Let the chips fall where they may.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

oops he was lying.


https://www.factcheck.org/2025/05/trumps-growing-exaggeration-of-u-s-investments/

---

Come on, you know no one actually meant trillions of dollars. You are being unreasonable, now.

Trump is the most effective President in the 250 years of the US existence. No body has ever seen anything like this. Don't go by what actually happens, DOGE is saving us trillions and we trillions of new investment. With all these savings , tariff money and investment next budget will be balanced and deficit coming down, right?

---

You are right. A man cant get info from the white house any more. Its no better now than a circus poster. Wasnt long ago it was fact filled
Thsnks for correcting me
The 27t came directly from the white page with big
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP on the front page.

Here it is. https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/04/100-days-of-investment-5-trillion-in-new-investment-fuels-americas-future/

---

That's $9T as of April. It's more than 2x that now that the EU deal is done.

Whatever else can be said about Trump, he does have a knack for inspiring all these companies and countries (who we are told quietly hate him, as all normal people do) to line up to make public announcements of outlandish nonsensical investments. Do they do that to make watch the guy smile? Are they just pandering to Maga-land? Inquiring minds want to know.

C + I + G +/- T = GDP. The "I" part is investment. It typically runs in the 20% range. So on a nominal GDP of $30T, I would be approx $6B. The guy has as much as 4.5x that pledged by countries & corporations. Is it really your position that all $27T is smoke & mirrors & none of it will ever happen? How much of it has to happen for our economy to benefit?

Be specific please.

---

Let's keep it simple and measurable.

How much did the US owe when Donald took office?
How much will the US owe when his FY 26 budget is approved or reconciled, because we can't approve a budget anymore.

Will the deficit be higher or lower?

Will the budget be balanced or lower?


Simple measurables. All the DOGE tweets, all the "commitments" to invest, all the monthly revenue projections (didn't know that was a thing usually we talk quarterly or Fiscal Year, but...) and all the rhetoric mean nothing if the numbers don't move.

So, based on where we are what are the numbers? No macro level discussions, no theory, or no lectures on how we don't understand big boy world... WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS ON THE LEDGER SHEET SHOWING?

---

THE NUMBERS ON THE LEGER SHEET ARE SHOWING REDUCED GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES AND RISING GOVERNMENT REVENUE. (to include a SURPLUS in June).

6 months in, we're making progress and you're *****ing like nothing at all has happened (except that Donald has hurt your feelings).

---

Hurt my feelings? What do feelings have to do with any of this? Look at his track record and you trust him implicitly.
His track record in office is superior to any elected POTUS of my lifetime. Dude makes the right promises and leaves it all on the field trying to deliver on those promises.

Who is the one that is letting their feelings lead the way?
You. Dude drives you crazy.

The last time he was in DC he was the precurser to Congress being stormed and the VP being asked to NOT honor the election slate.
See?

Go to Atlantic City and look around. Read about former USFL owners views. The guy has a history of starting strong and crashing and burning. No feelings about it, it is just pure caution after watching him for a lifetime.
Dude is rocking it right now.
And it's driving you crazy.

It is still deficit spending.
The most unserious critique of any US elected official at this time is that they voted for deficit spending. It is not possible to get from where we are to balance in a single budget cycle.

It does nothing to lower the debt load. There are semantic games going on and you know it.
It's only semantics if you do not intended to do anything about it. Dude has cut spending and raised revenues and has a stimulus package in place and is taking a number of policy steps that will lower the cost of doing business. That is what a serious plan to tackle the deficit spending problem looks like. What's unserious is suggesting that we can simply make one snip tomorrow to balance the budget. The votes are simply not there. The implications too uncertain. Our fiscal problems are an elephant that cannot be devoured in a single gulp. Improvements will be incremental, involve fits & starts, ups & downs, victories & setbacks over a period of years. Within that context, going an average monthly deficit of $150B or so to a surplus in June should be highly encouraging to any reasonable person. Shouldn't it?

Playing this "discretionary non-defense" vs "discretionary defense" spending game. It is a shift of how spending is occurring, not a "savings".
You do not understand what you are talking about. Anything that's not an entitlement is discretionary. Within the discretionary realm, Defense is the largest single component. Ergo, it makes completely logical conceptual sense when discussing budget cuts to break the discretionary realm in to "defense' and "non-defense" components.

It can't be a savings as the total budget is higher than FY 25 and it is deficit because it exceeds revenue. Those are facts, not feelings.
LOL again the false dilemma. Reducing spending and raising revenues LOWERS deficits. Lowering deficits is a prerequisite to balancing budgets. What we are seeing right now is progress. You are saying that progress is immaterial until we balance the budget.

Geez, just admit it that you don't care about the deficit and deficit spending under Trump. You are good with raising the deficit if the spending is on what YOU want or like. Than it is ok. If the Dems do it and the spending is on social programs, it is the end of our Nation and civil war coming (remember last year's dramatics?)
Geez, just admit that your antipathy to Trump's shenanigans make it impossible for you to recognize that his shenanigans are having positive impacts on our fiscal problems.

---

Dude. Seriously. Seek help.

---

We all need help from time to time, but can you stop posting replies within quotations? The quotes are for the quote, not the new reply. If you want to cut and paste little snippets, that can be done.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

Are we all about to watch Maxwell exonerate Trump, then get pardoned? Im not sure i have enough popcorn.

---

I think you're getting ready to watch the Maxwell exonerate everyone and get pardoned show.

While Trump has been good on the closing the border, deportations are nowhere near the levels they need to be. At current rates, only 25% of the people Biden let in will be deported by 2028, and the 30 million who were here at the start of Biden's presidency won't be touched

Killing USAID was brilliant, although I'm not sure just how many of those cockroaches are going to go scurrying under the State Department's umbrella. If enough do, it may end up being a shell game.

Tariffs were a good idea, but the execution was terrible.

The national debt and debt to gdp ratio continue to grow at unsustainable rates under his administration.

He has bought the nation some time, but what I have seen so far isn't nearly enough to change the destination.

---

Yeah, and to his credit, it's not like he gets to determine spending.

Not enough to have a President that wants to cut waste and increase revenue, Congress has to do it too. And i question whether Trump really wants that or not.

Always willing to give things a fair shot though, and tge tariffs are shaping up to be good overall for America. In its own way, it is a more organic way of bringing back limited manufacturing, than just subsidizing the heck out of a particular industry.

Porteroso said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

Are we all about to watch Maxwell exonerate Trump, then get pardoned? Im not sure i have enough popcorn.

---

I think you're getting ready to watch the Maxwell exonerate everyone and get pardoned show.

While Trump has been good on the closing the border, deportations are nowhere near the levels they need to be. At current rates, only 25% of the people Biden let in will be deported by 2028, and the 30 million who were here at the start of Biden's presidency won't be touched

Killing USAID was brilliant, although I'm not sure just how many of those cockroaches are going to go scurrying under the State Department's umbrella. If enough do, it may end up being a shell game.

Tariffs were a good idea, but the execution was terrible.

The national debt and debt to gdp ratio continue to grow at unsustainable rates under his administration.

He has bought the nation some time, but what I have seen so far isn't nearly enough to change the destination.

---

Yeah, and to his credit, it's not like he gets to determine spending.

Not enough to have a President that wants to cut waste and increase revenue, Congress has to do it too. And i question whether Trump really wants that or not.

Always willing to give things a fair shot though, and tge tariffs are shaping up to be good overall for America. In its own way, it is a more organic way of bringing back limited manufacturing, than just subsidizing the heck out of a particular industry.

---

Trump wants to spend on what Trump wants. Trump will say and do whatever it takes, truth or not. He will raise the deficit, steal from Peter to pay Paul, whatever it takes to do what he wants. That is his pattern and has been for 60 years. The current game is to have DoD do everything under "discretionary - defense" spending. EVERYTHING is a National Security issue that requires DoD or Executive control

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

You are right. A man cant get info from the white house any more. Its no better now than a circus poster. Wasnt long ago it was fact filled
Thsnks for correcting me
The 27t came directly from the white page with big
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP on the front page.

Here it is. https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/04/100-days-of-investment-5-trillion-in-new-investment-fuels-americas-future/

---

That's $9T as of April. It's more than 2x that now that the EU deal is done.

Whatever else can be said about Trump, he does have a knack for inspiring all these companies and countries (who we are told quietly hate him, as all normal people do) to line up to make public announcements of outlandish nonsensical investments. Do they do that to make watch the guy smile? Are they just pandering to Maga-land? Inquiring minds want to know.

C + I + G +/- T = GDP. The "I" part is investment. It typically runs in the 20% range. So on a nominal GDP of $30T, I would be approx $6B. The guy has as much as 4.5x that pledged by countries & corporations. Is it really your position that all $27T is smoke & mirrors & none of it will ever happen? How much of it has to happen for our economy to benefit?

Be specific please.

---

Let's keep it simple and measurable.

How much did the US owe when Donald took office?
How much will the US owe when his FY 26 budget is approved or reconciled, because we can't approve a budget anymore.

Will the deficit be higher or lower?

Will the budget be balanced or lower?


Simple measurables. All the DOGE tweets, all the "commitments" to invest, all the monthly revenue projections (didn't know that was a thing usually we talk quarterly or Fiscal Year, but...) and all the rhetoric mean nothing if the numbers don't move.

So, based on where we are what are the numbers? No macro level discussions, no theory, or no lectures on how we don't understand big boy world... WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS ON THE LEDGER SHEET SHOWING?

---

THE NUMBERS ON THE LEGER SHEET ARE SHOWING REDUCED GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES AND RISING GOVERNMENT REVENUE. (to include a SURPLUS in June).

6 months in, we're making progress and you're *****ing like nothing at all has happened (except that Donald has hurt your feelings).

---

Hurt my feelings? What do feelings have to do with any of this? Look at his track record and you trust him implicitly.
His track record in office is superior to any elected POTUS of my lifetime. Dude makes the right promises and leaves it all on the field trying to deliver on those promises.

Who is the one that is letting their feelings lead the way?
You. Dude drives you crazy.

The last time he was in DC he was the precurser to Congress being stormed and the VP being asked to NOT honor the election slate.
See?

Go to Atlantic City and look around. Read about former USFL owners views. The guy has a history of starting strong and crashing and burning. No feelings about it, it is just pure caution after watching him for a lifetime.
Dude is rocking it right now.
And it's driving you crazy.

It is still deficit spending.
The most unserious critique of any US elected official at this time is that they voted for deficit spending. It is not possible to get from where we are to balance in a single budget cycle.

It does nothing to lower the debt load. There are semantic games going on and you know it.
It's only semantics if you do not intended to do anything about it. Dude has cut spending and raised revenues and has a stimulus package in place and is taking a number of policy steps that will lower the cost of doing business. That is what a serious plan to tackle the deficit spending problem looks like. What's unserious is suggesting that we can simply make one snip tomorrow to balance the budget. The votes are simply not there. The implications too uncertain. Our fiscal problems are an elephant that cannot be devoured in a single gulp. Improvements will be incremental, involve fits & starts, ups & downs, victories & setbacks over a period of years. Within that context, going an average monthly deficit of $150B or so to a surplus in June should be highly encouraging to any reasonable person. Shouldn't it?

Playing this "discretionary non-defense" vs "discretionary defense" spending game. It is a shift of how spending is occurring, not a "savings".
You do not understand what you are talking about. Anything that's not an entitlement is discretionary. Within the discretionary realm, Defense is the largest single component. Ergo, it makes completely logical conceptual sense when discussing budget cuts to break the discretionary realm in to "defense' and "non-defense" components.

It can't be a savings as the total budget is higher than FY 25 and it is deficit because it exceeds revenue. Those are facts, not feelings.
LOL again the false dilemma. Reducing spending and raising revenues LOWERS deficits. Lowering deficits is a prerequisite to balancing budgets. What we are seeing right now is progress. You are saying that progress is immaterial until we balance the budget.

Geez, just admit it that you don't care about the deficit and deficit spending under Trump. You are good with raising the deficit if the spending is on what YOU want or like. Than it is ok. If the Dems do it and the spending is on social programs, it is the end of our Nation and civil war coming (remember last year's dramatics?)
Geez, just admit that your antipathy to Trump's shenanigans make it impossible for you to recognize that his shenanigans are having positive impacts on our fiscal problems.

---

Dude. Seriously. Seek help.

---

We are not seeing any of his great saving effects, we are hearing about them in tweets.

But this budget raises spending and the deficit, it simply moves it from discretions non-military to discretionary defense the overall spend is higher.

You and the other MAGA were railing on the lack of a balanced budget, runaway spending and the deficit as being the death of our Nation 6 months ago. Now, it is a non-issue?

This budget that is "saving" raises the deficit anywhere from 2.8T to 3.4T and the debt ceiling will be increased to 4T.

You guys are falling for the marketing more than the substance. But, I think you are more part of the marketing. Love your tactic anytime someone calls out Trump, they need help. Yawn...

---

Again, you do not understand the subject material. The BBB is/was not a budget. It is a reconciliation bill for THIS fiscal year, fiddling with the budget he inherited, which contains Trump's stimulus package, recissions, making current tax rates permanent, etc...the impacts of which are debatable because the widely quoted CBO estimates contain static analysis of impacts of revenues & expenditures (i.e. like maintaining current tax rates being considered at tax cut in future budget impacts). The FY 2026 budget has not been passed. It is still being worked on.
https://www.ascb.org/science-policy/the-big-beautiful-bill-is-not-the-budget/

One does not "move" expenditures from defense to non-defense as an accounting trick. One raises or cuts either or both areas. And in that regard, the 2026 budget proposal raises defense spending by 13% while cutting non-defense spending by 23 percent. That is a favorable offset. SO ANY INCREASE IN THE DEFICIT WILL BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO INCREASES IN ENTITLEMENT SPENDING.
https://www.fedweek.com/fedweek/trump-proposes-no-2026-raise-for-employees-cuts-in-non-defense-agencies/


It has never been realistic to attempt to balance the budget with cuts to discretionary spending, given that it is quite a bit smaller than ever growing entitlement spending. Big complication in the last few years is the increase in the cost of interest (as shown in chart). That's why Trump is throwing watermelons at Powell to lower rates. A 3 point reduction in interest rates, together with the other stuff Trump is doing.....now we're talking about material improvements in fiscal responsibility. Add in some tariff revenue and additional revenues.....and we see the Trump plan taking shape - growing the economy faster than growing the debt (which will lift federal tax revenues). It's an effort to better manage debt burden (achievable in a reasonable period of time), not an attempt to balance the budget in an unreasonably short amount of time. (because you can't do that without cutting social security, medicare, or other things that involve political suicide). This chart is old, but it illustrates the real problem - growth in entitlement spending over the long term, with a short term crisis in interest expense. Entitlements cannot be cut (political reality). It is inexorably crowding out everything else. But debt management does not have those political concerns.

To understand this, you must first recognize the laws of gravity - that it is not possible to balance the budget with discretionary spending cuts. It'd be the proverbial puppy trying to pull a freight train. Really good granular facts at link below, illustrating that mandatory spending is currently 60% of total federal spending, and that each 1% reduction in interest rates will reduce federal spending by $330B. So the 3-point interest rate Trump is asking for will save us nearly a trillion dollars. THAT IS WHY BESSENT IS FOCUSING ON DEBT MANAGEMENT. IT'S THE ONLY HOPE WE HAVE OF RESTORING FISCAL STABILITY WITHOUT COURTING POLITICAL INSTABLITY (cutting entitlements). What is the impact of $1T in reduced expenses, plus $700b in tariff revenue? Go look up the current budget deficits.
https://www.bburr.com/us-federal-budget-deficit-and-interest-rate-outlook-risks-and-crisis-scenarios/

Trump's plan is the best we have since Gingrich & Clinton figured out how to solve a much less complicated situation.

whiterock said:

---

Again, you do not understand the subject material. The BBB is/was not a budget. It is a reconciliation bill for THIS fiscal year, fiddling with the budget he inherited, which contains Trump's stimulus package, recissions, making current tax rates permanent, etc...the impacts of which are debatable because the widely quoted CBO estimates contain static analysis of impacts of revenues & expenditures (i.e. like maintaining current tax rates being considered at tax cut in future budget impacts). The FY 2026 budget has not been passed. It is still being worked on.
https://www.ascb.org/science-policy/the-big-beautiful-bill-is-not-the-budget/

One does not "move" expenditures from defense to non-defense as an accounting trick. One raises or cuts either or both areas. And in that regard, the 2026 budget proposal raises defense spending by 13% while cutting non-defense spending by 23 percent. That is a favorable offset. SO ANY INCREASE IN THE DEFICIT WILL BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO INCREASES IN ENTITLEMENT SPENDING.
https://www.fedweek.com/fedweek/trump-proposes-no-2026-raise-for-employees-cuts-in-non-defense-agencies/


It has never been realistic to attempt to balance the budget with cuts to discretionary spending, given that it is quite a bit smaller than ever growing entitlement spending. Big complication in the last few years is the increase in the cost of interest (as shown in chart). That's why Trump is throwing watermelons at Powell to lower rates. A 3 point reduction in interest rates, together with the other stuff Trump is doing.....now we're talking about material improvements in fiscal responsibility. Add in some tariff revenue and additional revenues.....and we see the Trump plan taking shape - growing the economy faster than growing the debt (which will lift federal tax revenues). It's an effort to better manage debt burden (achievable in a reasonable period of time), not an attempt to balance the budget in an unreasonably short amount of time. (because you can't do that without cutting social security, medicare, or other things that involve political suicide). This chart is old, but it illustrates the real problem - growth in entitlement spending over the long term, with a short term crisis in interest expense. Entitlements cannot be cut (political reality). It is inexorably crowding out everything else. But debt management does not have those political concerns.

To understand this, you must first recognize the laws of gravity - that it is not possible to balance the budget with discretionary spending cuts. It'd be the proverbial puppy trying to pull a freight train. Really good granular facts at link below, illustrating that mandatory spending is currently 60% of total federal spending, and that each 1% reduction in interest rates will reduce federal spending by $330B. So the 3-point interest rate Trump is asking for will save us nearly a trillion dollars. THAT IS WHY BESSENT IS FOCUSING ON DEBT MANAGEMENT. IT'S THE ONLY HOPE WE HAVE OF RESTORING FISCAL STABILITY WITHOUT COURTING POLITICAL INSTABLITY (cutting entitlements). What is the impact of $1T in reduced expenses, plus $700b in tariff revenue? Go look up the current budget deficits.
https://www.bburr.com/us-federal-budget-deficit-and-interest-rate-outlook-risks-and-crisis-scenarios/

Trump's plan is the best we have since Gingrich & Clinton figured out how to solve a much less complicated situation.

---

Maybe the most well-thought-out post ever on this forum

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

You are right. A man cant get info from the white house any more. Its no better now than a circus poster. Wasnt long ago it was fact filled
Thsnks for correcting me
The 27t came directly from the white page with big
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP on the front page.

Here it is. https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/04/100-days-of-investment-5-trillion-in-new-investment-fuels-americas-future/

---

That's $9T as of April. It's more than 2x that now that the EU deal is done.

Whatever else can be said about Trump, he does have a knack for inspiring all these companies and countries (who we are told quietly hate him, as all normal people do) to line up to make public announcements of outlandish nonsensical investments. Do they do that to make watch the guy smile? Are they just pandering to Maga-land? Inquiring minds want to know.

C + I + G +/- T = GDP. The "I" part is investment. It typically runs in the 20% range. So on a nominal GDP of $30T, I would be approx $6B. The guy has as much as 4.5x that pledged by countries & corporations. Is it really your position that all $27T is smoke & mirrors & none of it will ever happen? How much of it has to happen for our economy to benefit?

Be specific please.

---

Let's keep it simple and measurable.

How much did the US owe when Donald took office?
How much will the US owe when his FY 26 budget is approved or reconciled, because we can't approve a budget anymore.

Will the deficit be higher or lower?

Will the budget be balanced or lower?


Simple measurables. All the DOGE tweets, all the "commitments" to invest, all the monthly revenue projections (didn't know that was a thing usually we talk quarterly or Fiscal Year, but...) and all the rhetoric mean nothing if the numbers don't move.

So, based on where we are what are the numbers? No macro level discussions, no theory, or no lectures on how we don't understand big boy world... WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS ON THE LEDGER SHEET SHOWING?

---

THE NUMBERS ON THE LEGER SHEET ARE SHOWING REDUCED GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES AND RISING GOVERNMENT REVENUE. (to include a SURPLUS in June).

6 months in, we're making progress and you're *****ing like nothing at all has happened (except that Donald has hurt your feelings).

---

Hurt my feelings? What do feelings have to do with any of this? Look at his track record and you trust him implicitly.
His track record in office is superior to any elected POTUS of my lifetime. Dude makes the right promises and leaves it all on the field trying to deliver on those promises.

Who is the one that is letting their feelings lead the way?
You. Dude drives you crazy.

The last time he was in DC he was the precurser to Congress being stormed and the VP being asked to NOT honor the election slate.
See?

Go to Atlantic City and look around. Read about former USFL owners views. The guy has a history of starting strong and crashing and burning. No feelings about it, it is just pure caution after watching him for a lifetime.
Dude is rocking it right now.
And it's driving you crazy.

It is still deficit spending.
The most unserious critique of any US elected official at this time is that they voted for deficit spending. It is not possible to get from where we are to balance in a single budget cycle.

It does nothing to lower the debt load. There are semantic games going on and you know it.
It's only semantics if you do not intended to do anything about it. Dude has cut spending and raised revenues and has a stimulus package in place and is taking a number of policy steps that will lower the cost of doing business. That is what a serious plan to tackle the deficit spending problem looks like. What's unserious is suggesting that we can simply make one snip tomorrow to balance the budget. The votes are simply not there. The implications too uncertain. Our fiscal problems are an elephant that cannot be devoured in a single gulp. Improvements will be incremental, involve fits & starts, ups & downs, victories & setbacks over a period of years. Within that context, going an average monthly deficit of $150B or so to a surplus in June should be highly encouraging to any reasonable person. Shouldn't it?

Playing this "discretionary non-defense" vs "discretionary defense" spending game. It is a shift of how spending is occurring, not a "savings".
You do not understand what you are talking about. Anything that's not an entitlement is discretionary. Within the discretionary realm, Defense is the largest single component. Ergo, it makes completely logical conceptual sense when discussing budget cuts to break the discretionary realm in to "defense' and "non-defense" components.

It can't be a savings as the total budget is higher than FY 25 and it is deficit because it exceeds revenue. Those are facts, not feelings.
LOL again the false dilemma. Reducing spending and raising revenues LOWERS deficits. Lowering deficits is a prerequisite to balancing budgets. What we are seeing right now is progress. You are saying that progress is immaterial until we balance the budget.

Geez, just admit it that you don't care about the deficit and deficit spending under Trump. You are good with raising the deficit if the spending is on what YOU want or like. Than it is ok. If the Dems do it and the spending is on social programs, it is the end of our Nation and civil war coming (remember last year's dramatics?)
Geez, just admit that your antipathy to Trump's shenanigans make it impossible for you to recognize that his shenanigans are having positive impacts on our fiscal problems.

---

Dude. Seriously. Seek help.

---

We are not seeing any of his great saving effects, we are hearing about them in tweets.

But this budget raises spending and the deficit, it simply moves it from discretions non-military to discretionary defense the overall spend is higher.

You and the other MAGA were railing on the lack of a balanced budget, runaway spending and the deficit as being the death of our Nation 6 months ago. Now, it is a non-issue?

This budget that is "saving" raises the deficit anywhere from 2.8T to 3.4T and the debt ceiling will be increased to 4T.

You guys are falling for the marketing more than the substance. But, I think you are more part of the marketing. Love your tactic anytime someone calls out Trump, they need help. Yawn...

---

Again, you do not understand the subject material. The BBB is/was not a budget. It is a reconciliation bill for THIS fiscal year, fiddling with the budget he inherited, which contains Trump's stimulus package, recissions, making current tax rates permanent, etc...the impacts of which are debatable because the widely quoted CBO estimates contain static analysis of impacts of revenues & expenditures (i.e. like maintaining current tax rates being considered at tax cut in future budget impacts). The FY 2026 budget has not been passed. It is still being worked on.
https://www.ascb.org/science-policy/the-big-beautiful-bill-is-not-the-budget/

One does not "move" expenditures from defense to non-defense as an accounting trick. One raises or cuts either or both areas. And in that regard, the 2026 budget proposal raises defense spending by 13% while cutting non-defense spending by 23 percent. That is a favorable offset. SO ANY INCREASE IN THE DEFICIT WILL BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO INCREASES IN ENTITLEMENT SPENDING.
https://www.fedweek.com/fedweek/trump-proposes-no-2026-raise-for-employees-cuts-in-non-defense-agencies/


It has never been realistic to attempt to balance the budget with cuts to discretionary spending, given that it is quite a bit smaller than ever growing entitlement spending. Big complication in the last few years is the increase in the cost of interest (as shown in chart). That's why Trump is throwing watermelons at Powell to lower rates. A 3 point reduction in interest rates, together with the other stuff Trump is doing.....now we're talking about material improvements in fiscal responsibility. Add in some tariff revenue and additional revenues.....and we see the Trump plan taking shape - growing the economy faster than growing the debt (which will lift federal tax revenues). It's an effort to better manage debt burden (achievable in a reasonable period of time), not an attempt to balance the budget in an unreasonably short amount of time. (because you can't do that without cutting social security, medicare, or other things that involve political suicide). This chart is old, but it illustrates the real problem - growth in entitlement spending over the long term, with a short term crisis in interest expense. Entitlements cannot be cut (political reality). It is inexorably crowding out everything else. But debt management does not have those political concerns.

To understand this, you must first recognize the laws of gravity - that it is not possible to balance the budget with discretionary spending cuts. It'd be the proverbial puppy trying to pull a freight train. Really good granular facts at link below, illustrating that mandatory spending is currently 60% of total federal spending, and that each 1% reduction in interest rates will reduce federal spending by $330B. So the 3-point interest rate Trump is asking for will save us nearly a trillion dollars. THAT IS WHY BESSENT IS FOCUSING ON DEBT MANAGEMENT. IT'S THE ONLY HOPE WE HAVE OF RESTORING FISCAL STABILITY WITHOUT COURTING POLITICAL INSTABLITY (cutting entitlements). What is the impact of $1T in reduced expenses, plus $700b in tariff revenue? Go look up the current budget deficits.
https://www.bburr.com/us-federal-budget-deficit-and-interest-rate-outlook-risks-and-crisis-scenarios/

Trump's plan is the best we have since Gingrich & Clinton figured out how to solve a much less complicated situation.

---

You are playing budgeting games. Can't get the wall built in HSA, it became a National Security issue and was done in DoD and ended up in court. Remember? He is doing it this time on drug enforcement, border, and homeland defense. All would have been Disc- non defense and under scrutiny. Now under discretionary - defense it is easier to get through. Reassigning responsibilities to more palatable funding pots is a budgeting game.

Spending went up. Put up as many charts as you like and drone on how smart you are and the rest of us don't really understand so you can paternalistically explain. Bottomline, FY 26 budget spending is more, there are no "savings". Deficit will be higher under Trump's proposals. For all your and his blather, he is a just as bad on the deficit as Biden, Obama, or Bush. His actions are no different than the NeoCons. But keep telling us how much he is saving us and how we are not getting involved in others wars...

Those of us who actually do put together budgets and work programs see it. It is a game and marketing.

Whiterock's angle has always been that since you can't cut discretionary spending enough to balance the budget, you don't need to cut that part of discretionary spending that he lived, and his daughter currently live on. It's a blatantly self centered argument.

Social instability is inherent in the sort of sovereign debt crisis that is an inevitable part of our future.

Question for you MAGaotts here. why is Trump continually lying about the Expstein issue? It is a cover up, plain and simple. If Trumpy Bear didn't have anything to hide he would tell the Pole Dancer AD to release EVERYTHING now. What is he covering up?

J.R. said:

---

Question for you MAGaotts here. why is Trump continually lying about the Expstein issue? It is a cover up, plain and simple. If Trumpy Bear didn't have anything to hide he would tell the Pole Dancer AD to release EVERYTHING now. What is he covering up?

---

It clearly is a coverup. The error democrats are making is automatically jumping to the conclusion that his name is identified as one of the people Epstein collected kompromat on because he was sleeping with underage girls.

Trump is a Zionist through and through. I would argue that the coverup is much larger than a personal crime/moral failing.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

You are right. A man cant get info from the white house any more. Its no better now than a circus poster. Wasnt long ago it was fact filled
Thsnks for correcting me
The 27t came directly from the white page with big
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP on the front page.

Here it is. https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/04/100-days-of-investment-5-trillion-in-new-investment-fuels-americas-future/

---

That's $9T as of April. It's more than 2x that now that the EU deal is done.

Whatever else can be said about Trump, he does have a knack for inspiring all these companies and countries (who we are told quietly hate him, as all normal people do) to line up to make public announcements of outlandish nonsensical investments. Do they do that to make watch the guy smile? Are they just pandering to Maga-land? Inquiring minds want to know.

C + I + G +/- T = GDP. The "I" part is investment. It typically runs in the 20% range. So on a nominal GDP of $30T, I would be approx $6B. The guy has as much as 4.5x that pledged by countries & corporations. Is it really your position that all $27T is smoke & mirrors & none of it will ever happen? How much of it has to happen for our economy to benefit?

Be specific please.

---

Let's keep it simple and measurable.

How much did the US owe when Donald took office?
How much will the US owe when his FY 26 budget is approved or reconciled, because we can't approve a budget anymore.

Will the deficit be higher or lower?

Will the budget be balanced or lower?


Simple measurables. All the DOGE tweets, all the "commitments" to invest, all the monthly revenue projections (didn't know that was a thing usually we talk quarterly or Fiscal Year, but...) and all the rhetoric mean nothing if the numbers don't move.

So, based on where we are what are the numbers? No macro level discussions, no theory, or no lectures on how we don't understand big boy world... WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS ON THE LEDGER SHEET SHOWING?

---

THE NUMBERS ON THE LEGER SHEET ARE SHOWING REDUCED GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES AND RISING GOVERNMENT REVENUE. (to include a SURPLUS in June).

6 months in, we're making progress and you're *****ing like nothing at all has happened (except that Donald has hurt your feelings).

---

Hurt my feelings? What do feelings have to do with any of this? Look at his track record and you trust him implicitly.
His track record in office is superior to any elected POTUS of my lifetime. Dude makes the right promises and leaves it all on the field trying to deliver on those promises.

Who is the one that is letting their feelings lead the way?
You. Dude drives you crazy.

The last time he was in DC he was the precurser to Congress being stormed and the VP being asked to NOT honor the election slate.
See?

Go to Atlantic City and look around. Read about former USFL owners views. The guy has a history of starting strong and crashing and burning. No feelings about it, it is just pure caution after watching him for a lifetime.
Dude is rocking it right now.
And it's driving you crazy.

It is still deficit spending.
The most unserious critique of any US elected official at this time is that they voted for deficit spending. It is not possible to get from where we are to balance in a single budget cycle.

It does nothing to lower the debt load. There are semantic games going on and you know it.
It's only semantics if you do not intended to do anything about it. Dude has cut spending and raised revenues and has a stimulus package in place and is taking a number of policy steps that will lower the cost of doing business. That is what a serious plan to tackle the deficit spending problem looks like. What's unserious is suggesting that we can simply make one snip tomorrow to balance the budget. The votes are simply not there. The implications too uncertain. Our fiscal problems are an elephant that cannot be devoured in a single gulp. Improvements will be incremental, involve fits & starts, ups & downs, victories & setbacks over a period of years. Within that context, going an average monthly deficit of $150B or so to a surplus in June should be highly encouraging to any reasonable person. Shouldn't it?

Playing this "discretionary non-defense" vs "discretionary defense" spending game. It is a shift of how spending is occurring, not a "savings".
You do not understand what you are talking about. Anything that's not an entitlement is discretionary. Within the discretionary realm, Defense is the largest single component. Ergo, it makes completely logical conceptual sense when discussing budget cuts to break the discretionary realm in to "defense' and "non-defense" components.

It can't be a savings as the total budget is higher than FY 25 and it is deficit because it exceeds revenue. Those are facts, not feelings.
LOL again the false dilemma. Reducing spending and raising revenues LOWERS deficits. Lowering deficits is a prerequisite to balancing budgets. What we are seeing right now is progress. You are saying that progress is immaterial until we balance the budget.

Geez, just admit it that you don't care about the deficit and deficit spending under Trump. You are good with raising the deficit if the spending is on what YOU want or like. Than it is ok. If the Dems do it and the spending is on social programs, it is the end of our Nation and civil war coming (remember last year's dramatics?)
Geez, just admit that your antipathy to Trump's shenanigans make it impossible for you to recognize that his shenanigans are having positive impacts on our fiscal problems.

---

Dude. Seriously. Seek help.

---

We are not seeing any of his great saving effects, we are hearing about them in tweets.

But this budget raises spending and the deficit, it simply moves it from discretions non-military to discretionary defense the overall spend is higher.

You and the other MAGA were railing on the lack of a balanced budget, runaway spending and the deficit as being the death of our Nation 6 months ago. Now, it is a non-issue?

This budget that is "saving" raises the deficit anywhere from 2.8T to 3.4T and the debt ceiling will be increased to 4T.

You guys are falling for the marketing more than the substance. But, I think you are more part of the marketing. Love your tactic anytime someone calls out Trump, they need help. Yawn...

---

Again, you do not understand the subject material. The BBB is/was not a budget. It is a reconciliation bill for THIS fiscal year, fiddling with the budget he inherited, which contains Trump's stimulus package, recissions, making current tax rates permanent, etc...the impacts of which are debatable because the widely quoted CBO estimates contain static analysis of impacts of revenues & expenditures (i.e. like maintaining current tax rates being considered at tax cut in future budget impacts). The FY 2026 budget has not been passed. It is still being worked on.
https://www.ascb.org/science-policy/the-big-beautiful-bill-is-not-the-budget/

One does not "move" expenditures from defense to non-defense as an accounting trick. One raises or cuts either or both areas. And in that regard, the 2026 budget proposal raises defense spending by 13% while cutting non-defense spending by 23 percent. That is a favorable offset. SO ANY INCREASE IN THE DEFICIT WILL BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO INCREASES IN ENTITLEMENT SPENDING.
https://www.fedweek.com/fedweek/trump-proposes-no-2026-raise-for-employees-cuts-in-non-defense-agencies/


It has never been realistic to attempt to balance the budget with cuts to discretionary spending, given that it is quite a bit smaller than ever growing entitlement spending. Big complication in the last few years is the increase in the cost of interest (as shown in chart). That's why Trump is throwing watermelons at Powell to lower rates. A 3 point reduction in interest rates, together with the other stuff Trump is doing.....now we're talking about material improvements in fiscal responsibility. Add in some tariff revenue and additional revenues.....and we see the Trump plan taking shape - growing the economy faster than growing the debt (which will lift federal tax revenues). It's an effort to better manage debt burden (achievable in a reasonable period of time), not an attempt to balance the budget in an unreasonably short amount of time. (because you can't do that without cutting social security, medicare, or other things that involve political suicide). This chart is old, but it illustrates the real problem - growth in entitlement spending over the long term, with a short term crisis in interest expense. Entitlements cannot be cut (political reality). It is inexorably crowding out everything else. But debt management does not have those political concerns.

To understand this, you must first recognize the laws of gravity - that it is not possible to balance the budget with discretionary spending cuts. It'd be the proverbial puppy trying to pull a freight train. Really good granular facts at link below, illustrating that mandatory spending is currently 60% of total federal spending, and that each 1% reduction in interest rates will reduce federal spending by $330B. So the 3-point interest rate Trump is asking for will save us nearly a trillion dollars. THAT IS WHY BESSENT IS FOCUSING ON DEBT MANAGEMENT. IT'S THE ONLY HOPE WE HAVE OF RESTORING FISCAL STABILITY WITHOUT COURTING POLITICAL INSTABLITY (cutting entitlements). What is the impact of $1T in reduced expenses, plus $700b in tariff revenue? Go look up the current budget deficits.
https://www.bburr.com/us-federal-budget-deficit-and-interest-rate-outlook-risks-and-crisis-scenarios/

Trump's plan is the best we have since Gingrich & Clinton figured out how to solve a much less complicated situation.

---

You are playing budgeting games. Can't get the wall built in HSA, it became a National Security issue and was done in DoD and ended up in court. Remember? He is doing it this time on drug enforcement, border, and homeland defense. All would have been Disc- non defense and under scrutiny. Now under discretionary - defense it is easier to get through. Reassigning responsibilities to more palatable funding pots is a budgeting game.

Spending went up. Put up as many charts as you like and drone on how smart you are and the rest of us don't really understand so you can paternalistically explain. Bottomline, FY 26 budget spending is more, there are no "savings". Deficit will be higher under Trump's proposals. For all your and his blather, he is a just as bad on the deficit as Biden, Obama, or Bush. His actions are no different than the NeoCons. But keep telling us how much he is saving us and how we are not getting involved in others wars...

Those of us who actually do put together budgets and work programs see it. It is a game and marketing.

---

No, you are playing budgeting games.

I run a $33m budget at work. I hold the gavel over a $10m budget in public service.

Realitybites said:

---

Whiterock's angle has always been that since you can't cut discretionary spending enough to balance the budget, you don't need to cut that part of discretionary spending that he lived, and his daughter currently live on. It's a blatantly self centered argument.

Social instability is inherent in the sort of sovereign debt crisis that is an inevitable part of our future.

---

so intelligence collection and national defense are unnecessary pork barrel spending. If we just stay home, nobody will mess with us. is that the best you got?

No, I'm saying what you support is not sustainable or rational.

1 United States
Defense spending: 997.0
Percentage of GDP: 3.4

2 China
Defense spending: 314.0
Percentage of GDP: 1.7

3 Russia
Defense spending: 149.0
Percentage of GDP: 7.1

Obviously we need a military. A country that does not have one, will inevitably acquire someone else's. However, as the "arsenal of democracy" we need to stop interfering with the democratic process in other nations and take care of our own house.

...and this is inexcusable: United States spends around 65% of the world's intelligence spending. The country spends over $75 billion each year only on its intelligence. Over ten times that of China or Russia, 20x that of MI6.

Realitybites said:

---

No, I'm saying what you support is not sustainable or rational.

1 United States
Defense spending: 997.0
Percentage of GDP: 3.4

2 China
Defense spending: 314.0
Percentage of GDP: 1.7

3 Russia
Defense spending: 149.0
Percentage of GDP: 7.1

Obviously we need a military. A country that does not have one, will inevitably acquire someone else's. However, as the "arsenal of democracy" we need to stop interfering with the democratic process in other nations and take care of our own house.
"quit interfering...and take care of our own house....." That's the engine of isolationism. In the real world, you engage in the game of geopolitics because it's cheaper to influence events in your favor than it is to let them drift until you have to go to war to fix them.

...and this is inexcusable: United States spends around 65% of the world's intelligence spending. The country spends over $75 billion each year only on its intelligence. Over ten times that of China or Russia, 20x that of MI6.

---

Defense spending is not on a straight-line upward trajectory that cannot be fiddled with. Entitlements are.
Entitlement drive deficits, not defense spending.
Trump inherited deficits larger than defense spending.
You cannot balance the budget solely by cutting discretionary spending.
You have to either cut entitlements OR grow the economy faster than the deficits.
QED we have a Trump policy to do the latter.

The oceans around us do make us more secure than most countries. But they also create logistical challenges that make it more expensive for us to be ready to fight. We must have lots of logistical infrastructure (bases, cargo aircraft, sea-lift capacities, etc....) . Indeed, we are the primary provider of those kinds of assets to Nato. The Brits barely got a couple of brigades to the Falklands. The French aren't much better. Nobody else in Nato could come close to doing it. There was a time when that reality was perceived as a good thing...that it gave us extra controls over the foreign policy of Nato members . There was a time when we were happy for Nato to be a US skeleton into which Europeans mainly needed to help flesh out into a large Army. Now that we've downsized from Cold War and GWOT, we are asking for Nato countries to do more. And they have pledged to do so (motivated by what Russia did in Ukraine). That gives us some ability to focus more on Asia. (which we are doing).

It is expensive to have a military powerful enough to do what ours can do. But it does provide deterrence. It does drive allies to us. And it does greatly reduce the odds of having to fight wars that would cost multiples of our annual defense budget.

Realitybites said:

---

No, I'm saying what you support is not sustainable or rational.

1 United States
Defense spending: 997.0
Percentage of GDP: 3.4

2 China
Defense spending: 314.0
Percentage of GDP: 1.7

3 Russia
Defense spending: 149.0
Percentage of GDP: 7.1

Obviously we need a military. A country that does not have one, will inevitably acquire someone else's. However, as the "arsenal of democracy" we need to stop interfering with the democratic process in other nations and take care of our own house.

...and this is inexcusable: United States spends around 65% of the world's intelligence spending. The country spends over $75 billion each year only on its intelligence. Over ten times that of China or Russia, 20x that of MI6.

---

The spending is needed. I have no problem with the budget and what it accomplishes. But, it does not cut a penny. There are no "savings". It is reallocated. This is one big exercise to reallocate spending to Donald's likes. Not problem, but it is deficit budgeting. It is just as not balanced as Biden's or OBama's.

My point is for MAGA just tell the truth. Don't sell DOGE, reconciliation and the FY 26 budget as some great step forward in getting spending under control. MAGA is just as big government spend as Biden, just in the military and HSA versus social services.

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

No, I'm saying what you support is not sustainable or rational.

1 United States
Defense spending: 997.0
Percentage of GDP: 3.4

2 China
Defense spending: 314.0
Percentage of GDP: 1.7

3 Russia
Defense spending: 149.0
Percentage of GDP: 7.1

Obviously we need a military. A country that does not have one, will inevitably acquire someone else's. However, as the "arsenal of democracy" we need to stop interfering with the democratic process in other nations and take care of our own house.
"quit interfering...and take care of our own house....." That's the engine of isolationism. In the real world, you engage in the game of geopolitics because it's cheaper to influence events in your favor than it is to let them drift until you have to go to war to fix them.

...and this is inexcusable: United States spends around 65% of the world's intelligence spending. The country spends over $75 billion each year only on its intelligence. Over ten times that of China or Russia, 20x that of MI6.

---

Defense spending is not on a straight-line upward trajectory that cannot be fiddled with. Entitlements are.
Entitlement drive deficits, not defense spending.
Trump inherited deficits larger than defense spending.
You cannot balance the budget solely by cutting discretionary spending.
You have to either cut entitlements OR grow the economy faster than the deficits.
QED we have a Trump policy to do the latter.

The oceans around us do make us more secure than most countries. But they also create logistical challenges that make it more expensive for us to be ready to fight. We must have lots of logistical infrastructure (bases, cargo aircraft, sea-lift capacities, etc....) . Indeed, we are the primary provider of those kinds of assets to Nato. The Brits barely got a couple of brigades to the Falklands. The French aren't much better. Nobody else in Nato could come close to doing it. There was a time when that reality was perceived as a good thing...that it gave us extra controls over the foreign policy of Nato members . There was a time when we were happy for Nato to be a US skeleton into which Europeans mainly needed to help flesh out into a large Army. Now that we've downsized from Cold War and GWOT, we are asking for Nato countries to do more. And they have pledged to do so (motivated by what Russia did in Ukraine). That gives us some ability to focus more on Asia. (which we are doing).

It is expensive to have a military powerful enough to do what ours can do. But it does provide deterrence. It does drive allies to us. And it does greatly reduce the odds of having to fight wars that would cost multiples of our annual defense budget.

---

You keep changing to what the budget and reconciliation does, NOT how much it costs. No one is arguing that we have a strong military or the border needs to be shut down and that cost money.

What we are saying is that it is still deficit spending and Trump is not saving us or future generations dollar 1. It is more of the same, actually a very NeoCom/Globalist plan. NeoComs would love the money going to Ukraine, the military and border security. Missile defense? Right out of the Reagan playbook.

But, it is not a financially conservative plan by any means.

By the way, we are working on both the FY 26 budget which is in Congress AND FY 25 reconciliation. Neither of them are showing ANY signs of savings. Even the FY 25 reconciliation, with all the so-called DOGE savings, the final number is going to be higher.

BREAKING: FBI & DOJ find missing one-minute from Jeffrey Epstein jail cell tape, per FBI source.

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) July 29, 2025

Claim: “The Massie and the Khanna discharge petition does not have adequate protections [for victims].”

Verdict: FALSE - Section 1(A) of Permitted Withholdings provides explicit protections for victims. pic.twitter.com/DxvgCXhAkk

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) July 30, 2025

Claim: “[the bill] requires the DOJ to release grand jury testimony. They are prohibited by law from doing so."

Verdict: FALSE - the bill does not require DOJ to release grand jury testimony, nor does it attempt to override Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e).

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) July 30, 2025

Claim: Johnson has a competing resolution that is “well drafted, thoughtfully drafted” to deliver transparency and accountability.

Verdict: FALSE - the competing legislation (H.Res.589) is non-binding. It has no force of law, meaning it cannot require any release of any files.

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) July 30, 2025

Donald Trump before breaking Jeffrey Epstein’s neck https://t.co/UfxbBjJMKP pic.twitter.com/BccHNrZkzr

— The Mansized Labubu (@pissGoblin) July 30, 2025

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

No, I'm saying what you support is not sustainable or rational.

1 United States
Defense spending: 997.0
Percentage of GDP: 3.4

2 China
Defense spending: 314.0
Percentage of GDP: 1.7

3 Russia
Defense spending: 149.0
Percentage of GDP: 7.1

Obviously we need a military. A country that does not have one, will inevitably acquire someone else's. However, as the "arsenal of democracy" we need to stop interfering with the democratic process in other nations and take care of our own house.
"quit interfering...and take care of our own house....." That's the engine of isolationism. In the real world, you engage in the game of geopolitics because it's cheaper to influence events in your favor than it is to let them drift until you have to go to war to fix them.

...and this is inexcusable: United States spends around 65% of the world's intelligence spending. The country spends over $75 billion each year only on its intelligence. Over ten times that of China or Russia, 20x that of MI6.

---

Defense spending is not on a straight-line upward trajectory that cannot be fiddled with. Entitlements are.
Entitlement drive deficits, not defense spending.
Trump inherited deficits larger than defense spending.
You cannot balance the budget solely by cutting discretionary spending.
You have to either cut entitlements OR grow the economy faster than the deficits.
QED we have a Trump policy to do the latter.

The oceans around us do make us more secure than most countries. But they also create logistical challenges that make it more expensive for us to be ready to fight. We must have lots of logistical infrastructure (bases, cargo aircraft, sea-lift capacities, etc....) . Indeed, we are the primary provider of those kinds of assets to Nato. The Brits barely got a couple of brigades to the Falklands. The French aren't much better. Nobody else in Nato could come close to doing it. There was a time when that reality was perceived as a good thing...that it gave us extra controls over the foreign policy of Nato members . There was a time when we were happy for Nato to be a US skeleton into which Europeans mainly needed to help flesh out into a large Army. Now that we've downsized from Cold War and GWOT, we are asking for Nato countries to do more. And they have pledged to do so (motivated by what Russia did in Ukraine). That gives us some ability to focus more on Asia. (which we are doing).

It is expensive to have a military powerful enough to do what ours can do. But it does provide deterrence. It does drive allies to us. And it does greatly reduce the odds of having to fight wars that would cost multiples of our annual defense budget.

---

You keep changing to what the budget and reconciliation does, NOT how much it costs. No one is arguing that we have a strong military or the border needs to be shut down and that cost money.

What we are saying is that it is still deficit spending and Trump is not saving us or future generations dollar 1. It is more of the same, actually a very NeoCom/Globalist plan. NeoComs would love the money going to Ukraine, the military and border security. Missile defense? Right out of the Reagan playbook.

But, it is not a financially conservative plan by any means.

By the way, we are working on both the FY 26 budget which is in Congress AND FY 25 reconciliation. Neither of them are showing ANY signs of savings. Even the FY 25 reconciliation, with all the so-called DOGE savings, the final number is going to be higher.

---

You are blaming discretionary spending, which is only a quarter of the budget, for the deficit. You are saying that slashing discretionary spending, which does save money, is irrelevant unless the budget balances. Which of course means you are prepared to cut entitlement spending, right? If you're not prepared to cut social security and medicare to balance budget, then you have no choice but to grow your way out of the problem = slow the rate of rise in spending, increase the rate of economic growth. Instead, you are just throwing a temper tantrum because Trump didn't do everything at once.

Here's the reality: Federal spending is never in our lifetime going to be lower than a prior year. Our population is growing, and within that our largest generation is moving into entitlement years. Growth in entitlements alone, as a matter of mathematics, guarantees growth in spending. To balance the budget without cutting entitlements, we would have to ELIMINATE all discretionary spending. Not just cut every government agency including the military....but eliminate it. ALL. So we have to grow our of it.

Trump has done much to slow the rate of growth - RIF, close agencies, litigate to close more, recissions packages, etc..... And he's done much to increase revenues - a stimulus plan just passed and will in future years generate more revenue, tariffs are on pace to generate hundreds of billions of dollars of new revenue, etc..... And he's doing all that in the face of fierce opposition, judicial activism, media firestorms, etc..... He did not promised to eliminate the deficit in a day. He promised to to shrink deficits and grow the economy. He is making progress on that.

But if it makes you feel better to stomp your feet & scream at the sky that we do not have a balanced budget today, by all means. Please proceed. It's always beneficial when the unserious identify themselves.

I am not familiar with open secrets

BREAKING: Newly resurfaced reports reveal that Senator Chuck Schumer received thousands of dollars in donations from Jeffrey Epstein, per OpenSecrets.

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) July 30, 2025

boognish_bear said:

---

I am not familiar with open secrets

BREAKING: Newly resurfaced reports reveal that Senator Chuck Schumer received thousands of dollars in donations from Jeffrey Epstein, per OpenSecrets.

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) July 30, 2025

---

According to Federal Election Commission records, Schumer received seven $1,000 donations from Epstein between 1992 and 1997, during his time as a US congressman and when he was campaigning for a Senate seat. Epstein also contributed $10,000 to Victory in New York, a joint fundraising committee connected to Schumer and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and an additional $5,000 to Win New York, a Schumer-associated committee benefiting the Liberal Party of New York state. This brings the total amount received from Epstein and Epstein-linked entities to $22,000.

Not exactly vote swinging dough, but then again Schumer is a snake

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

No, I'm saying what you support is not sustainable or rational.

1 United States
Defense spending: 997.0
Percentage of GDP: 3.4

2 China
Defense spending: 314.0
Percentage of GDP: 1.7

3 Russia
Defense spending: 149.0
Percentage of GDP: 7.1

Obviously we need a military. A country that does not have one, will inevitably acquire someone else's. However, as the "arsenal of democracy" we need to stop interfering with the democratic process in other nations and take care of our own house.
"quit interfering...and take care of our own house....." That's the engine of isolationism. In the real world, you engage in the game of geopolitics because it's cheaper to influence events in your favor than it is to let them drift until you have to go to war to fix them.

...and this is inexcusable: United States spends around 65% of the world's intelligence spending. The country spends over $75 billion each year only on its intelligence. Over ten times that of China or Russia, 20x that of MI6.

---

Defense spending is not on a straight-line upward trajectory that cannot be fiddled with. Entitlements are.
Entitlement drive deficits, not defense spending.
Trump inherited deficits larger than defense spending.
You cannot balance the budget solely by cutting discretionary spending.
You have to either cut entitlements OR grow the economy faster than the deficits.
QED we have a Trump policy to do the latter.

The oceans around us do make us more secure than most countries. But they also create logistical challenges that make it more expensive for us to be ready to fight. We must have lots of logistical infrastructure (bases, cargo aircraft, sea-lift capacities, etc....) . Indeed, we are the primary provider of those kinds of assets to Nato. The Brits barely got a couple of brigades to the Falklands. The French aren't much better. Nobody else in Nato could come close to doing it. There was a time when that reality was perceived as a good thing...that it gave us extra controls over the foreign policy of Nato members . There was a time when we were happy for Nato to be a US skeleton into which Europeans mainly needed to help flesh out into a large Army. Now that we've downsized from Cold War and GWOT, we are asking for Nato countries to do more. And they have pledged to do so (motivated by what Russia did in Ukraine). That gives us some ability to focus more on Asia. (which we are doing).

It is expensive to have a military powerful enough to do what ours can do. But it does provide deterrence. It does drive allies to us. And it does greatly reduce the odds of having to fight wars that would cost multiples of our annual defense budget.

---

You keep changing to what the budget and reconciliation does, NOT how much it costs. No one is arguing that we have a strong military or the border needs to be shut down and that cost money.

What we are saying is that it is still deficit spending and Trump is not saving us or future generations dollar 1. It is more of the same, actually a very NeoCom/Globalist plan. NeoComs would love the money going to Ukraine, the military and border security. Missile defense? Right out of the Reagan playbook.

But, it is not a financially conservative plan by any means.

By the way, we are working on both the FY 26 budget which is in Congress AND FY 25 reconciliation. Neither of them are showing ANY signs of savings. Even the FY 25 reconciliation, with all the so-called DOGE savings, the final number is going to be higher.

---

You are blaming discretionary spending, which is only a quarter of the budget, for the deficit. You are saying that slashing discretionary spending, which does save money, is irrelevant unless the budget balances. Which of course means you are prepared to cut entitlement spending, right? If you're not prepared to cut social security and medicare to balance budget, then you have no choice but to grow your way out of the problem = slow the rate of rise in spending, increase the rate of economic growth. Instead, you are just throwing a temper tantrum because Trump didn't do everything at once.

Here's the reality: Federal spending is never in our lifetime going to be lower than a prior year. Our population is growing, and within that our largest generation is moving into entitlement years. Growth in entitlements alone, as a matter of mathematics, guarantees growth in spending. To balance the budget without cutting entitlements, we would have to ELIMINATE all discretionary spending. Not just cut every government agency including the military....but eliminate it. ALL. So we have to grow our of it.

Trump has done much to slow the rate of growth - RIF, close agencies, litigate to close more, recissions packages, etc..... And he's done much to increase revenues - a stimulus plan just passed and will in future years generate more revenue, tariffs are on pace to generate hundreds of billions of dollars of new revenue, etc..... And he's doing all that in the face of fierce opposition, judicial activism, media firestorms, etc..... He did not promised to eliminate the deficit in a day. He promised to to shrink deficits and grow the economy. He is making progress on that.

But if it makes you feel better to stomp your feet & scream at the sky that we do not have a balanced budget today, by all means. Please proceed. It's always beneficial when the unserious identify themselves.

---

There you go again, if you don't agree or question it is stomping your feet. Very Bannon-esqe...


But, you miss the point. Trump and MAGA ran on reducing spending and the deficit. Yet, his budget will add 1.8T to 3.4T. After the same promise in 2016 of paying off the deficit in 8 years (19 trillion at the time), he added 7T.

And you have the balls to give me a hard time over questioning whether he will make the economic situation worse? This guy has a track record, this is not 2016. We know exactly what he will do. If government spending and the National Debt are important issues to you, you better be paying attention and not just rubber stamping whatever Bannon tells you to.

BREAKING: Democrats invoke rare Senate rule to force release of some Epstein documents, per Axios.

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) July 31, 2025

BREAKING: A mystery third person was spotted on camera in jailhouse footage from Jeffrey Epstein’s final night alive, a CBS News investigation has revealed.

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) July 31, 2025

boognish_bear said:

---

BREAKING: A mystery third person was spotted on camera in jailhouse footage from Jeffrey Epstein’s final night alive, a CBS News investigation has revealed.

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) July 31, 2025

---

Is it Hillary?

Peter Thiel, the billionaire co-founder of Palantir, has stated that it’s unlikely Jeffrey Epstein was involved with foreign intelligence.

Epstein invested $40 million into Thiel’s Valar Ventures capital fund, which has since appreciated to $170 million.

Follow: @AFpost pic.twitter.com/KLbMod0U6l

— AF Post (@AFpost) July 31, 2025

Q: "You said that Jeffrey Epstein stole people from Mar-a-Lago. At the time, did you know why he was taking those young women including Virginia?"

President Trump: "No. I figured it was ABC fake news that would ask that question ... But no, I don't know really why." pic.twitter.com/UGAjPqa2qN

— CSPAN (@cspan) July 31, 2025

What's the over/under on Melania divorcing his sorry as he is hideous looking, crude, crass, lying sack? Or is she just going to keep whoring it up?

J.R. said:

---

What's the over/under on Melania divorcing his sorry as he is hideous looking, crude, crass, lying sack? Or is she just going to keep whoring it up?

---

That's just sick. Even for you.

🚨BREAKING: Sen. Chuck Schumer invokes century-old law called "Rule of Five" to FORCE the DOJ to release ALL documents related to Jeffery Epstein.

"When any five senators on the Homeland Security Committee call on the executive branch, the executive branch must comply." pic.twitter.com/FlaA5SgQcK

— The Patriot Oasis™ (@ThePatriotOasis) July 30, 2025