historian said:
Isn't New Mexico a sanctuary state? The two are related.
whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:Robert Wilson said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:Robert Wilson said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:
How much of that investment is in the budget year and approved? That is the best place to start, the rest is work program fluff.
What you're doing here is pointing to a shiny new car sitting on the parking lot saying "well, it probably won't start because it's been sitting there for along time so the battery's probably dead....we don't know if there's enough gas in the tank for it to go anywhere, and might not even be bought by someone with a drivers' license. So obviously it isn't actually a car.
Otherwise known as "copium."
He also thinks it's terrible if the income tax were to become unnecessary "because Trump."
I NEVER said that. Actually, if you look I said if Trump pulls that off the Country will make him Emperor.
But, you actually think that has any chance of happening?
Not only that, none of these "savings" will ever hit the books. But, keep celebrating X posts.
Whiterock, if the tariffs do solve our financial woes I will be the first one to give him credit for pulling it off.
Strawman. No one is saying tariffs will "solve" our fiscal deficits. But its looking like they will cover a quarter or third or thereabouts = a meaningful contribution. Tariffs are first and foremost a policy choice to protect critical industries, like the ones Trump has (correctly) identified. Tariff income is quite a bit more volatile than income taxes. It ebbs and flows in direct response to business cycle dynamics, whereas payroll taxes are quite a bit less elastic. Neither is good or bad, just is (and you have to plan accordingly). And, unlike payroll taxes, tariffs are quite responsive to the Laffer Curve....if you raise them too much, you price the tariffed item out of the market and revenue plunges to zero. That dynamic doesn't exactly apply to income taxes.
My experience with you is that if you are wrong, you will re-package to say you weren't or change your position along the way. Sort of like now the "investments" are really loans and loan guarentees.
Another strawman. Pointing out what things mean and how things will actually happen is not changing a position.
When a foreign government of a market economy agrees to make investments, it can be safely presumed that the government itself is not making a private sector investment. Rather, it is using USD it holds in its system to loan (or guarantee loans) for its own companies to invest in the USA (for the purpose of moving a greater percentage of its US business inside the tariff barrier line). That government has an incentive to do so in order to avoid the tariffs, which could cost job losses in their country.
Again, you are making stuff up to avoid the bloody friggin' obvious. Trump's trade policies are going to deliver meaningful revenues at nominal cost to consumers, and are going to be powerfully economically stimulative. The revenues are already here. And the stimulus will be arriving soon (along with the BBB passed last month). Trying to deny that by saying "well, you know, Trump is a liar and none of the things he says ever happen" is just copium. Dude has a strong record in office of fighting like hell to get stuff done and making good on promises. And not just the easy promises. He's actually accomplished things that even his supporters thought would not be possible.
LOL. I mean, why is this so hard for you? You said you voted for the guy. So obviously you liked at least a few of his policies. Why do you then spin around, drop your zipper, and start hosing the guy down? Just because you don't like his rhetoric? Dude has lined up 5x the average annual GDP investment amount to occur in the next 2 years. It's unprecedented. Even US companies are redirecting investments in production back to the USA (Apple announcement).
FL can't get over DOGE firing some federal employees. It hit him personally or he took it personally, and he now filters everything through that lens.
I'll cautiously say this appears to be going far better than I thought. I was all for reciprocal tariffs, but Trump went way beyond that, brought people to the table, and the end result might be way better than I suspected. I was quite skeptical when he rolled it out, just taking a huge swing at trade deficits in general.
You miss my point. It is not what is being done, it is how it is being done. Other Presidents have reduced Government. Simplest way is the not fill open positions and attrition. The damage done to people is what bothers me, along with the haphazard way they chose. All political .
Got news for you, if you think people are not going to look at Trump's Administration through the lens of DOGE you are nuts. He made it the signature of his Administration with all the Musk sideshow. He had Musk with a Chainsaw. He impacts over a million lives through the "cuts," not to mention more through cancelled contracts. Of course people are going to look at him through a DOGE lens.
Again, the inconsistency. In one post you lambaste the spending. In another, you say we cut too much too fast.
We have a $1.9T deficit. You cannot fix that with attrition. You have to slash. You have slash quick. And you have to slash big. And even with all that slashing, the cuts to discretionary spending were modest..
You really are serious? We are spending too much AND they are slashing too quickly. You really don't see anyway that both are happening? You really believe that?
You really don't see the:
"What"- spending too much
and the
"How"- Chainsaw Elon
may happen concurrently? That to solve the "What", the "How" is using a harmful or destructive method? That the two are inconsistent with each other? The methods have nothing to do with solving the problem. I am starting to see how Iran-Contra happened...
I think you know it is BS, but you CANNOT say anything negative about Donald.
Talk about inconsistent, as you said, we have a 1.9T deficit. When I showed that Trump's budget actually raises the deficit, your response was it is "understood" that spending is still going up every year. What is it? Are we cutting with a chainsaw because the 1.9T deficit is that big of a problem or is it understood that the budget will go up under Donald and cutting is really a theoretical exercise (unless you are someone that Donald doesn't like, than chainsaw.)
If you are going to do this, it needs to be data based. Not the Donald "Tombstone" vendetta...
good grief you are confused. YOU are the one simultaneously complaining about the deficit being too big for too long and Trump slashing too much too fast.
I am the one who's speaking reality - that it would politically and economically reckless to try to slash the budget to balance in a single cycle, in no small part because it is entitlements driving the deficit. The more pragmatic policy would be to cut as much as you can up front and try to grow your way into sustainable ratios. That is exactly what Trump's stated plan is. And he is making good progress on it.
Trump's budget raises CBO deficit projections, which are never accurate, because they have too many static assumptions and baseline projections, leading to nonsense like keeping the current tax rates in place equating to a budget cut.
You are going to look really, really foolish as things continue to improve......
You do have a blind spot here. For a reasonable, normally intelligent poster the fact that you can't see that "how" they are implementing policies can be a negative. No matter how noble or correct a policy is if the execution is handled in a boorish, amatuerish method it is a negative. DOGE was just that, the amatuerish, boorish implementation of a policy everyone pretty much agrees.
Every president promises to cut the size of government, but none of them ever do anything about it. We finally get one who does. And you insist that how he did it undermines the benefit of actually doing it?
A good comparison, Biden leaving Afghanistan. We all agree, including Trump, that we needed to get out of Afghanistan. Sound policy decision. The execution of that policy was amateurish, haphazard and ultimately a negative.
What a misanthropic analogy. The cuts Trump has made to civil service payroll, honoring decades-old GOP promises to eliminate agencies, etc......has been rendered to the level of the Abby Gate bombing in Kabul? All those cuts to government, because of how they were done, is now equivalent to the Taliban retaking Afghanistan?
Regardless of whether things get better, how those people were treated and the side show Trump turned it into will be a negative in future elections going forward. You will see Elon with a Chainsaw, Elon standing at parade rest behind Trump in staff meetings, and hear how the FAA, NOAA and others had to hire people back because of the amateurish way they did it.
So if he'd just been nicer about how he slashed payroll and decomissioned agencies, everything would be peachy? None of the entrenched interests would have complained had they been cut by hands wearing velvet gloves?
Was the policy good? Absolutely, if he wants to reduce the size of Government, he isn't the first, we all agree. We all agree the inclusion training and diversity distracted from the mission. How, was a disaster.
As for those number getting better. What timeframe are we talking? 6 months? 1 year? 2 years? 2028? In the short term, you will see revenue increases. What happens in the mid and long term?
So many problems with that last part.
1) CBO definitions are arbitrary, like extending current tax rates being equivalent to a tax cut.
2) CBO projections do not take future tariff revenues into account.
3) CBO projections are static, do not allow for any dynamic effect of stimulus or tax policies.
4) CBO projections do not take any of the DOGE waste/fraud/abuse cuts into account.
5) CBO projections do not take any of the passed or pending recissions packages into account
6) CBO projections do not take any of the civil service workforce reductions into account.
7) CBO projections do not take any of the DOGE process improvements into account (e.g. a single ERP for USG)
>>>DOGE fraud/abuse/waste numbers + annualized tariff revenues are over a quarter of the PROJECTED deficit.<<<
Again. Repeat after me:
-Slowing the rate of growth in government spending is a positive thing.
-Accelerating economic growth to generate more tax revenues is a positive thing.
-Trump has a pragmatic plan to grow our way into a viable financial situation.
-So far, Trump is making tangible, concrete progress on his plan.
The most unreasonable idea of all is that Trump could have done all that without making anyone angry.
Repeat after me, you have to actually have numbers that show it. But, once you get the "right" people in place, they will show a rosy picture, as delinquencies and foreclosures are rising...
The numbers show a USG budget surplus for the month of June, for the first time in decades. The numbers show economic growth beating expectations.
Those are positive numbers. right?
By the way, where did I mention CBO? You are the only one using CBO. Might want to move to another source...
LOL the deficit projections you are citing are the CBO generated numbers.
Is CPI good? Or are they against Trump? Just want to know before I look... That's right, you can't tell me, it depends on if it is good or bad...
The CPI numbers are nominal increases against worsening job numbers. That is instructive as the Fed has a dual mandate - to fight inflation AND facilitate full employment.
that notorious Maga rag USA Today says - mixed results.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2025/08/12/cpi-report-data-inflation-july/85618971007/
Mixed results is what one would reasonably expect with massive policy changes looming, most of which have only been in place 4-6 weeks.
Cutting interest rates lowers the federal deficit.Lowering the federal deficit reduces inflation pressures from deficit spending.
- Inflationary pressure: Artificially low interest rates for prolonged periods could risk igniting or re-igniting inflation, especially in a near-full employment economy, according to Reuters. Higher inflation could negate any savings on debt service costs by eroding the purchasing power of the dollar and potentially leading to higher future interest rates if the Federal Reserve is forced to act to bring inflation under control.
- Investor confidence: Maintaining interest rates at levels perceived as too low or politically driven could erode investor confidence in the long-term stability of the economy, Reuters says. This could make it more difficult or expensive for the government to borrow in the future, negating the benefits of initial rate cuts.
- Underlying fiscal imbalances: Even with lower interest rates, if the government's underlying spending and revenue policies create a structural deficit, the positive effect of lower rates might only be temporary.
think it thru.....
historian said:
Waco1947 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:Robert Wilson said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:Robert Wilson said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:
How much of that investment is in the budget year and approved? That is the best place to start, the rest is work program fluff.
What you're doing here is pointing to a shiny new car sitting on the parking lot saying "well, it probably won't start because it's been sitting there for along time so the battery's probably dead....we don't know if there's enough gas in the tank for it to go anywhere, and might not even be bought by someone with a drivers' license. So obviously it isn't actually a car.
Otherwise known as "copium."
He also thinks it's terrible if the income tax were to become unnecessary "because Trump."
I NEVER said that. Actually, if you look I said if Trump pulls that off the Country will make him Emperor.
But, you actually think that has any chance of happening?
Not only that, none of these "savings" will ever hit the books. But, keep celebrating X posts.
Whiterock, if the tariffs do solve our financial woes I will be the first one to give him credit for pulling it off.
Strawman. No one is saying tariffs will "solve" our fiscal deficits. But its looking like they will cover a quarter or third or thereabouts = a meaningful contribution. Tariffs are first and foremost a policy choice to protect critical industries, like the ones Trump has (correctly) identified. Tariff income is quite a bit more volatile than income taxes. It ebbs and flows in direct response to business cycle dynamics, whereas payroll taxes are quite a bit less elastic. Neither is good or bad, just is (and you have to plan accordingly). And, unlike payroll taxes, tariffs are quite responsive to the Laffer Curve....if you raise them too much, you price the tariffed item out of the market and revenue plunges to zero. That dynamic doesn't exactly apply to income taxes.
My experience with you is that if you are wrong, you will re-package to say you weren't or change your position along the way. Sort of like now the "investments" are really loans and loan guarentees.
Another strawman. Pointing out what things mean and how things will actually happen is not changing a position.
When a foreign government of a market economy agrees to make investments, it can be safely presumed that the government itself is not making a private sector investment. Rather, it is using USD it holds in its system to loan (or guarantee loans) for its own companies to invest in the USA (for the purpose of moving a greater percentage of its US business inside the tariff barrier line). That government has an incentive to do so in order to avoid the tariffs, which could cost job losses in their country.
Again, you are making stuff up to avoid the bloody friggin' obvious. Trump's trade policies are going to deliver meaningful revenues at nominal cost to consumers, and are going to be powerfully economically stimulative. The revenues are already here. And the stimulus will be arriving soon (along with the BBB passed last month). Trying to deny that by saying "well, you know, Trump is a liar and none of the things he says ever happen" is just copium. Dude has a strong record in office of fighting like hell to get stuff done and making good on promises. And not just the easy promises. He's actually accomplished things that even his supporters thought would not be possible.
LOL. I mean, why is this so hard for you? You said you voted for the guy. So obviously you liked at least a few of his policies. Why do you then spin around, drop your zipper, and start hosing the guy down? Just because you don't like his rhetoric? Dude has lined up 5x the average annual GDP investment amount to occur in the next 2 years. It's unprecedented. Even US companies are redirecting investments in production back to the USA (Apple announcement).
FL can't get over DOGE firing some federal employees. It hit him personally or he took it personally, and he now filters everything through that lens.
I'll cautiously say this appears to be going far better than I thought. I was all for reciprocal tariffs, but Trump went way beyond that, brought people to the table, and the end result might be way better than I suspected. I was quite skeptical when he rolled it out, just taking a huge swing at trade deficits in general.
You miss my point. It is not what is being done, it is how it is being done. Other Presidents have reduced Government. Simplest way is the not fill open positions and attrition. The damage done to people is what bothers me, along with the haphazard way they chose. All political .
Got news for you, if you think people are not going to look at Trump's Administration through the lens of DOGE you are nuts. He made it the signature of his Administration with all the Musk sideshow. He had Musk with a Chainsaw. He impacts over a million lives through the "cuts," not to mention more through cancelled contracts. Of course people are going to look at him through a DOGE lens.
Again, the inconsistency. In one post you lambaste the spending. In another, you say we cut too much too fast.
We have a $1.9T deficit. You cannot fix that with attrition. You have to slash. You have slash quick. And you have to slash big. And even with all that slashing, the cuts to discretionary spending were modest..
You really are serious? We are spending too much AND they are slashing too quickly. You really don't see anyway that both are happening? You really believe that?
You really don't see the:
"What"- spending too much
and the
"How"- Chainsaw Elon
may happen concurrently? That to solve the "What", the "How" is using a harmful or destructive method? That the two are inconsistent with each other? The methods have nothing to do with solving the problem. I am starting to see how Iran-Contra happened...
I think you know it is BS, but you CANNOT say anything negative about Donald.
Talk about inconsistent, as you said, we have a 1.9T deficit. When I showed that Trump's budget actually raises the deficit, your response was it is "understood" that spending is still going up every year. What is it? Are we cutting with a chainsaw because the 1.9T deficit is that big of a problem or is it understood that the budget will go up under Donald and cutting is really a theoretical exercise (unless you are someone that Donald doesn't like, than chainsaw.)
If you are going to do this, it needs to be data based. Not the Donald "Tombstone" vendetta...
good grief you are confused. YOU are the one simultaneously complaining about the deficit being too big for too long and Trump slashing too much too fast.
I am the one who's speaking reality - that it would politically and economically reckless to try to slash the budget to balance in a single cycle, in no small part because it is entitlements driving the deficit. The more pragmatic policy would be to cut as much as you can up front and try to grow your way into sustainable ratios. That is exactly what Trump's stated plan is. And he is making good progress on it.
Trump's budget raises CBO deficit projections, which are never accurate, because they have too many static assumptions and baseline projections, leading to nonsense like keeping the current tax rates in place equating to a budget cut.
You are going to look really, really foolish as things continue to improve......
You do have a blind spot here. For a reasonable, normally intelligent poster the fact that you can't see that "how" they are implementing policies can be a negative. No matter how noble or correct a policy is if the execution is handled in a boorish, amatuerish method it is a negative. DOGE was just that, the amatuerish, boorish implementation of a policy everyone pretty much agrees.
Every president promises to cut the size of government, but none of them ever do anything about it. We finally get one who does. And you insist that how he did it undermines the benefit of actually doing it?
A good comparison, Biden leaving Afghanistan. We all agree, including Trump, that we needed to get out of Afghanistan. Sound policy decision. The execution of that policy was amateurish, haphazard and ultimately a negative.
What a misanthropic analogy. The cuts Trump has made to civil service payroll, honoring decades-old GOP promises to eliminate agencies, etc......has been rendered to the level of the Abby Gate bombing in Kabul? All those cuts to government, because of how they were done, is now equivalent to the Taliban retaking Afghanistan?
Regardless of whether things get better, how those people were treated and the side show Trump turned it into will be a negative in future elections going forward. You will see Elon with a Chainsaw, Elon standing at parade rest behind Trump in staff meetings, and hear how the FAA, NOAA and others had to hire people back because of the amateurish way they did it.
So if he'd just been nicer about how he slashed payroll and decomissioned agencies, everything would be peachy? None of the entrenched interests would have complained had they been cut by hands wearing velvet gloves?
Was the policy good? Absolutely, if he wants to reduce the size of Government, he isn't the first, we all agree. We all agree the inclusion training and diversity distracted from the mission. How, was a disaster.
As for those number getting better. What timeframe are we talking? 6 months? 1 year? 2 years? 2028? In the short term, you will see revenue increases. What happens in the mid and long term?
So many problems with that last part.
1) CBO definitions are arbitrary, like extending current tax rates being equivalent to a tax cut.
2) CBO projections do not take future tariff revenues into account.
3) CBO projections are static, do not allow for any dynamic effect of stimulus or tax policies.
4) CBO projections do not take any of the DOGE waste/fraud/abuse cuts into account.
5) CBO projections do not take any of the passed or pending recissions packages into account
6) CBO projections do not take any of the civil service workforce reductions into account.
7) CBO projections do not take any of the DOGE process improvements into account (e.g. a single ERP for USG)
>>>DOGE fraud/abuse/waste numbers + annualized tariff revenues are over a quarter of the PROJECTED deficit.<<<
Again. Repeat after me:
-Slowing the rate of growth in government spending is a positive thing.
-Accelerating economic growth to generate more tax revenues is a positive thing.
-Trump has a pragmatic plan to grow our way into a viable financial situation.
-So far, Trump is making tangible, concrete progress on his plan.
The most unreasonable idea of all is that Trump could have done all that without making anyone angry.
Repeat after me, you have to actually have numbers that show it. But, once you get the "right" people in place, they will show a rosy picture, as delinquencies and foreclosures are rising...
The numbers show a USG budget surplus for the month of June, for the first time in decades. The numbers show economic growth beating expectations.
Those are positive numbers. right?
By the way, where did I mention CBO? You are the only one using CBO. Might want to move to another source...
LOL the deficit projections you are citing are the CBO generated numbers.
Is CPI good? Or are they against Trump? Just want to know before I look... That's right, you can't tell me, it depends on if it is good or bad...
The CPI numbers are nominal increases against worsening job numbers. That is instructive as the Fed has a dual mandate - to fight inflation AND facilitate full employment.
that notorious Maga rag USA Today says - mixed results.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2025/08/12/cpi-report-data-inflation-july/85618971007/
Mixed results is what one would reasonably expect with massive policy changes looming, most of which have only been in place 4-6 weeks.
Cutting interest rates lowers the federal deficit.Lowering the federal deficit reduces inflation pressures from deficit spending.
- Inflationary pressure: Artificially low interest rates for prolonged periods could risk igniting or re-igniting inflation, especially in a near-full employment economy, according to Reuters. Higher inflation could negate any savings on debt service costs by eroding the purchasing power of the dollar and potentially leading to higher future interest rates if the Federal Reserve is forced to act to bring inflation under control.
- Investor confidence: Maintaining interest rates at levels perceived as too low or politically driven could erode investor confidence in the long-term stability of the economy, Reuters says. This could make it more difficult or expensive for the government to borrow in the future, negating the benefits of initial rate cuts.
- Underlying fiscal imbalances: Even with lower interest rates, if the government's underlying spending and revenue policies create a structural deficit, the positive effect of lower rates might only be temporary.
think it thru.....
FLBear5630 said:KaiBear said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:
LOL do you even know what the CBO is?
(Hint: it was not the entity mentioned in your link…..)
Congressional Budget Office. The Committee for Responsible Federal Budget used CBO numbers and their model. The CBO figures were good enough for their analysis, at least when it indicated a positive.
"theory, pouring $2.8 trillion from tariffs into the national coffers could markedly slow the growth of the federal debt. Congressional Budget Office figures and CRFB models suggest that, if kept permanent, Trump's tariff regime could reduce the deficit by up to $2.8 trillion in the next decade. "
Get it.
Oh I get it. You don't.
CFRB uses CBO data (which is good) but not the CBO model (which terrible).
CFRB uses its own model.
That's why CBO projected the tariffs would generate $872B in revenues over the next ten years, but CFRB projects $2.8T in revenues over the same period.
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2024-09/60692-Tariffs.pdf
See?
Interesting information.
Well done.
It is interesting.
That is what CFRB does, their model measures the impacts of different policies. Scenario testing is fun and interesting. Keep in mind, CFRB is estimating for 10 years. What from 10 years ago is accurate today?
CBO has to use existing laws and policies. CBO uses existing data, it does not project what may happen like CFRB does. So, CBO estimates what a tax cut would do under current conditions, not adding growth (which would give you a higher estimate like the Trump tax cuts rigged numbers) or taking out recessionary which would give a high estimate.
CFRB's model is designed to measure policy from a Responsible Budgeting perspective and does take into account estimates of economic impact. CBO would be a more conservative estimate as it can't look at "maybes"
I actually thought our MAGA fans would like using a more robust model. Apparently even showing a potential plus is not enough to save from a lecture...
historian said:
FLBear5630 said:Waco1947 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:
good grief you are confused. YOU are the one simultaneously complaining about the deficit being too big for too long and Trump slashing too much too fast.
I am the one who's speaking reality - that it would politically and economically reckless to try to slash the budget to balance in a single cycle, in no small part because it is entitlements driving the deficit. The more pragmatic policy would be to cut as much as you can up front and try to grow your way into sustainable ratios. That is exactly what Trump's stated plan is. And he is making good progress on it.
Trump's budget raises CBO deficit projections, which are never accurate, because they have too many static assumptions and baseline projections, leading to nonsense like keeping the current tax rates in place equating to a budget cut.
You are going to look really, really foolish as things continue to improve......
You do have a blind spot here. For a reasonable, normally intelligent poster the fact that you can't see that "how" they are implementing policies can be a negative. No matter how noble or correct a policy is if the execution is handled in a boorish, amatuerish method it is a negative. DOGE was just that, the amatuerish, boorish implementation of a policy everyone pretty much agrees.
Every president promises to cut the size of government, but none of them ever do anything about it. We finally get one who does. And you insist that how he did it undermines the benefit of actually doing it?
A good comparison, Biden leaving Afghanistan. We all agree, including Trump, that we needed to get out of Afghanistan. Sound policy decision. The execution of that policy was amateurish, haphazard and ultimately a negative.
What a misanthropic analogy. The cuts Trump has made to civil service payroll, honoring decades-old GOP promises to eliminate agencies, etc......has been rendered to the level of the Abby Gate bombing in Kabul? All those cuts to government, because of how they were done, is now equivalent to the Taliban retaking Afghanistan?
Regardless of whether things get better, how those people were treated and the side show Trump turned it into will be a negative in future elections going forward. You will see Elon with a Chainsaw, Elon standing at parade rest behind Trump in staff meetings, and hear how the FAA, NOAA and others had to hire people back because of the amateurish way they did it.
So if he'd just been nicer about how he slashed payroll and decomissioned agencies, everything would be peachy? None of the entrenched interests would have complained had they been cut by hands wearing velvet gloves?
Was the policy good? Absolutely, if he wants to reduce the size of Government, he isn't the first, we all agree. We all agree the inclusion training and diversity distracted from the mission. How, was a disaster.
As for those number getting better. What timeframe are we talking? 6 months? 1 year? 2 years? 2028? In the short term, you will see revenue increases. What happens in the mid and long term?
So many problems with that last part.
1) CBO definitions are arbitrary, like extending current tax rates being equivalent to a tax cut.
2) CBO projections do not take future tariff revenues into account.
3) CBO projections are static, do not allow for any dynamic effect of stimulus or tax policies.
4) CBO projections do not take any of the DOGE waste/fraud/abuse cuts into account.
5) CBO projections do not take any of the passed or pending recissions packages into account
6) CBO projections do not take any of the civil service workforce reductions into account.
7) CBO projections do not take any of the DOGE process improvements into account (e.g. a single ERP for USG)
>>>DOGE fraud/abuse/waste numbers + annualized tariff revenues are over a quarter of the PROJECTED deficit.<<<
Again. Repeat after me:
-Slowing the rate of growth in government spending is a positive thing.
-Accelerating economic growth to generate more tax revenues is a positive thing.
-Trump has a pragmatic plan to grow our way into a viable financial situation.
-So far, Trump is making tangible, concrete progress on his plan.
The most unreasonable idea of all is that Trump could have done all that without making anyone angry.
Repeat after me, you have to actually have numbers that show it. But, once you get the "right" people in place, they will show a rosy picture, as delinquencies and foreclosures are rising...
The numbers show a USG budget surplus for the month of June, for the first time in decades. The numbers show economic growth beating expectations.
Those are positive numbers. right?
By the way, where did I mention CBO? You are the only one using CBO. Might want to move to another source...
LOL the deficit projections you are citing are the CBO generated numbers.
Is CPI good? Or are they against Trump? Just want to know before I look... That's right, you can't tell me, it depends on if it is good or bad...
The CPI numbers are nominal increases against worsening job numbers. That is instructive as the Fed has a dual mandate - to fight inflation AND facilitate full employment.
that notorious Maga rag USA Today says - mixed results.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2025/08/12/cpi-report-data-inflation-july/85618971007/
Mixed results is what one would reasonably expect with massive policy changes looming, most of which have only been in place 4-6 weeks.
Cutting interest rates lowers the federal deficit.Lowering the federal deficit reduces inflation pressures from deficit spending.
- Inflationary pressure: Artificially low interest rates for prolonged periods could risk igniting or re-igniting inflation, especially in a near-full employment economy, according to Reuters. Higher inflation could negate any savings on debt service costs by eroding the purchasing power of the dollar and potentially leading to higher future interest rates if the Federal Reserve is forced to act to bring inflation under control.
- Investor confidence: Maintaining interest rates at levels perceived as too low or politically driven could erode investor confidence in the long-term stability of the economy, Reuters says. This could make it more difficult or expensive for the government to borrow in the future, negating the benefits of initial rate cuts.
- Underlying fiscal imbalances: Even with lower interest rates, if the government's underlying spending and revenue policies create a structural deficit, the positive effect of lower rates might only be temporary.
think it thru.....
The Federal Deficit is tracked by the Treasury. You keep looking a models, I am looking at the actual deficit. Everything you have been saying is what could be... I am talking what is.
Make up your mind on timeframe. TRACKING actual deficits is a rear view mirror. PROJECTING what future deficits might look like in response to policy is windshield work.
You make a point, is the budget surplus a positive thing? First is it real? I guess it is reported by CBO, correct? The same models you can't trust. So. let's say it is real.
LOL you simply do not understand how all of this stuff works. You said above (correctly) that the Treasury reports actual outcomes at the end of each month, then suggest (incorrectly) that CBO also reports them. CBO does not report them. They simply plug the Treasury numbers into their projection models as baseline data.
The question on whether that is positive or not is how is it used? Did it lower the deficit? If so, than is it a great thing. Or did we pump it into more Government spending, only spending you like. Maybe Defense, we will need more National Guard monies now that they are Federalized. Than no, it is not a good thing. It is more of the same.
whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:Waco1947 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:
good grief you are confused. YOU are the one simultaneously complaining about the deficit being too big for too long and Trump slashing too much too fast.
I am the one who's speaking reality - that it would politically and economically reckless to try to slash the budget to balance in a single cycle, in no small part because it is entitlements driving the deficit. The more pragmatic policy would be to cut as much as you can up front and try to grow your way into sustainable ratios. That is exactly what Trump's stated plan is. And he is making good progress on it.
Trump's budget raises CBO deficit projections, which are never accurate, because they have too many static assumptions and baseline projections, leading to nonsense like keeping the current tax rates in place equating to a budget cut.
You are going to look really, really foolish as things continue to improve......
You do have a blind spot here. For a reasonable, normally intelligent poster the fact that you can't see that "how" they are implementing policies can be a negative. No matter how noble or correct a policy is if the execution is handled in a boorish, amatuerish method it is a negative. DOGE was just that, the amatuerish, boorish implementation of a policy everyone pretty much agrees.
Every president promises to cut the size of government, but none of them ever do anything about it. We finally get one who does. And you insist that how he did it undermines the benefit of actually doing it?
A good comparison, Biden leaving Afghanistan. We all agree, including Trump, that we needed to get out of Afghanistan. Sound policy decision. The execution of that policy was amateurish, haphazard and ultimately a negative.
What a misanthropic analogy. The cuts Trump has made to civil service payroll, honoring decades-old GOP promises to eliminate agencies, etc......has been rendered to the level of the Abby Gate bombing in Kabul? All those cuts to government, because of how they were done, is now equivalent to the Taliban retaking Afghanistan?
Regardless of whether things get better, how those people were treated and the side show Trump turned it into will be a negative in future elections going forward. You will see Elon with a Chainsaw, Elon standing at parade rest behind Trump in staff meetings, and hear how the FAA, NOAA and others had to hire people back because of the amateurish way they did it.
So if he'd just been nicer about how he slashed payroll and decomissioned agencies, everything would be peachy? None of the entrenched interests would have complained had they been cut by hands wearing velvet gloves?
Was the policy good? Absolutely, if he wants to reduce the size of Government, he isn't the first, we all agree. We all agree the inclusion training and diversity distracted from the mission. How, was a disaster.
As for those number getting better. What timeframe are we talking? 6 months? 1 year? 2 years? 2028? In the short term, you will see revenue increases. What happens in the mid and long term?
So many problems with that last part.
1) CBO definitions are arbitrary, like extending current tax rates being equivalent to a tax cut.
2) CBO projections do not take future tariff revenues into account.
3) CBO projections are static, do not allow for any dynamic effect of stimulus or tax policies.
4) CBO projections do not take any of the DOGE waste/fraud/abuse cuts into account.
5) CBO projections do not take any of the passed or pending recissions packages into account
6) CBO projections do not take any of the civil service workforce reductions into account.
7) CBO projections do not take any of the DOGE process improvements into account (e.g. a single ERP for USG)
>>>DOGE fraud/abuse/waste numbers + annualized tariff revenues are over a quarter of the PROJECTED deficit.<<<
Again. Repeat after me:
-Slowing the rate of growth in government spending is a positive thing.
-Accelerating economic growth to generate more tax revenues is a positive thing.
-Trump has a pragmatic plan to grow our way into a viable financial situation.
-So far, Trump is making tangible, concrete progress on his plan.
The most unreasonable idea of all is that Trump could have done all that without making anyone angry.
Repeat after me, you have to actually have numbers that show it. But, once you get the "right" people in place, they will show a rosy picture, as delinquencies and foreclosures are rising...
The numbers show a USG budget surplus for the month of June, for the first time in decades. The numbers show economic growth beating expectations.
Those are positive numbers. right?
By the way, where did I mention CBO? You are the only one using CBO. Might want to move to another source...
LOL the deficit projections you are citing are the CBO generated numbers.
Is CPI good? Or are they against Trump? Just want to know before I look... That's right, you can't tell me, it depends on if it is good or bad...
The CPI numbers are nominal increases against worsening job numbers. That is instructive as the Fed has a dual mandate - to fight inflation AND facilitate full employment.
that notorious Maga rag USA Today says - mixed results.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2025/08/12/cpi-report-data-inflation-july/85618971007/
Mixed results is what one would reasonably expect with massive policy changes looming, most of which have only been in place 4-6 weeks.
Cutting interest rates lowers the federal deficit.Lowering the federal deficit reduces inflation pressures from deficit spending.
- Inflationary pressure: Artificially low interest rates for prolonged periods could risk igniting or re-igniting inflation, especially in a near-full employment economy, according to Reuters. Higher inflation could negate any savings on debt service costs by eroding the purchasing power of the dollar and potentially leading to higher future interest rates if the Federal Reserve is forced to act to bring inflation under control.
- Investor confidence: Maintaining interest rates at levels perceived as too low or politically driven could erode investor confidence in the long-term stability of the economy, Reuters says. This could make it more difficult or expensive for the government to borrow in the future, negating the benefits of initial rate cuts.
- Underlying fiscal imbalances: Even with lower interest rates, if the government's underlying spending and revenue policies create a structural deficit, the positive effect of lower rates might only be temporary.
think it thru.....
The Federal Deficit is tracked by the Treasury. You keep looking a models, I am looking at the actual deficit. Everything you have been saying is what could be... I am talking what is.
Make up your mind on timeframe. TRACKING actual deficits is a rear view mirror. PROJECTING what future deficits might look like in response to policy is windshield work.
You make a point, is the budget surplus a positive thing? First is it real? I guess it is reported by CBO, correct? The same models you can't trust. So. let's say it is real.
LOL you simply do not understand how all of this stuff works. You said above (correctly) that the Treasury reports actual outcomes at the end of each month, then suggest (incorrectly) that CBO also reports them. CBO does not report them. They simply plug the Treasury numbers into their projection models as baseline data.
The question on whether that is positive or not is how is it used? Did it lower the deficit? If so, than is it a great thing. Or did we pump it into more Government spending, only spending you like. Maybe Defense, we will need more National Guard monies now that they are Federalized. Than no, it is not a good thing. It is more of the same.
Month by month numbers matter, but they are not determinative for long term impacts. We had a (substantial and very rare) surplus in June. We had a larger than expected deficit in July. Only fools would argue that one number or the other is instructive as to the impact of Trump policies. The sober mind would average the two out to get a better idea of what they might tell us, and then remember that Trump's BBB did not get passed until the end of July. Anyone making any serious attempt to get a handle on where we might be headed would have to note that the spending which occurred in June/July is, by law, a Biden budget mitigated by Trump's payroll RIF, agency closures, etc...... Trump critics are not trying to do any of that. They're just engaging in insanity, squealing that he is cratering the federal government agency by agency yet not saving a dime.
Reality is, any impact the BBB might have, plus/minus, cannot be reasonably imputed because it was not actually signed into law until the two periods had elapsed. But you just gotta gotta complain about Trump very day because you hate his schtick so much, so here we are.....
FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:Waco1947 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:
good grief you are confused. YOU are the one simultaneously complaining about the deficit being too big for too long and Trump slashing too much too fast.
I am the one who's speaking reality - that it would politically and economically reckless to try to slash the budget to balance in a single cycle, in no small part because it is entitlements driving the deficit. The more pragmatic policy would be to cut as much as you can up front and try to grow your way into sustainable ratios. That is exactly what Trump's stated plan is. And he is making good progress on it.
Trump's budget raises CBO deficit projections, which are never accurate, because they have too many static assumptions and baseline projections, leading to nonsense like keeping the current tax rates in place equating to a budget cut.
You are going to look really, really foolish as things continue to improve......
You do have a blind spot here. For a reasonable, normally intelligent poster the fact that you can't see that "how" they are implementing policies can be a negative. No matter how noble or correct a policy is if the execution is handled in a boorish, amatuerish method it is a negative. DOGE was just that, the amatuerish, boorish implementation of a policy everyone pretty much agrees.
Every president promises to cut the size of government, but none of them ever do anything about it. We finally get one who does. And you insist that how he did it undermines the benefit of actually doing it?
A good comparison, Biden leaving Afghanistan. We all agree, including Trump, that we needed to get out of Afghanistan. Sound policy decision. The execution of that policy was amateurish, haphazard and ultimately a negative.
What a misanthropic analogy. The cuts Trump has made to civil service payroll, honoring decades-old GOP promises to eliminate agencies, etc......has been rendered to the level of the Abby Gate bombing in Kabul? All those cuts to government, because of how they were done, is now equivalent to the Taliban retaking Afghanistan?
Regardless of whether things get better, how those people were treated and the side show Trump turned it into will be a negative in future elections going forward. You will see Elon with a Chainsaw, Elon standing at parade rest behind Trump in staff meetings, and hear how the FAA, NOAA and others had to hire people back because of the amateurish way they did it.
So if he'd just been nicer about how he slashed payroll and decomissioned agencies, everything would be peachy? None of the entrenched interests would have complained had they been cut by hands wearing velvet gloves?
Was the policy good? Absolutely, if he wants to reduce the size of Government, he isn't the first, we all agree. We all agree the inclusion training and diversity distracted from the mission. How, was a disaster.
As for those number getting better. What timeframe are we talking? 6 months? 1 year? 2 years? 2028? In the short term, you will see revenue increases. What happens in the mid and long term?
So many problems with that last part.
1) CBO definitions are arbitrary, like extending current tax rates being equivalent to a tax cut.
2) CBO projections do not take future tariff revenues into account.
3) CBO projections are static, do not allow for any dynamic effect of stimulus or tax policies.
4) CBO projections do not take any of the DOGE waste/fraud/abuse cuts into account.
5) CBO projections do not take any of the passed or pending recissions packages into account
6) CBO projections do not take any of the civil service workforce reductions into account.
7) CBO projections do not take any of the DOGE process improvements into account (e.g. a single ERP for USG)
>>>DOGE fraud/abuse/waste numbers + annualized tariff revenues are over a quarter of the PROJECTED deficit.<<<
Again. Repeat after me:
-Slowing the rate of growth in government spending is a positive thing.
-Accelerating economic growth to generate more tax revenues is a positive thing.
-Trump has a pragmatic plan to grow our way into a viable financial situation.
-So far, Trump is making tangible, concrete progress on his plan.
The most unreasonable idea of all is that Trump could have done all that without making anyone angry.
Repeat after me, you have to actually have numbers that show it. But, once you get the "right" people in place, they will show a rosy picture, as delinquencies and foreclosures are rising...
The numbers show a USG budget surplus for the month of June, for the first time in decades. The numbers show economic growth beating expectations.
Those are positive numbers. right?
By the way, where did I mention CBO? You are the only one using CBO. Might want to move to another source...
LOL the deficit projections you are citing are the CBO generated numbers.
Is CPI good? Or are they against Trump? Just want to know before I look... That's right, you can't tell me, it depends on if it is good or bad...
The CPI numbers are nominal increases against worsening job numbers. That is instructive as the Fed has a dual mandate - to fight inflation AND facilitate full employment.
that notorious Maga rag USA Today says - mixed results.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2025/08/12/cpi-report-data-inflation-july/85618971007/
Mixed results is what one would reasonably expect with massive policy changes looming, most of which have only been in place 4-6 weeks.
Cutting interest rates lowers the federal deficit.Lowering the federal deficit reduces inflation pressures from deficit spending.
- Inflationary pressure: Artificially low interest rates for prolonged periods could risk igniting or re-igniting inflation, especially in a near-full employment economy, according to Reuters. Higher inflation could negate any savings on debt service costs by eroding the purchasing power of the dollar and potentially leading to higher future interest rates if the Federal Reserve is forced to act to bring inflation under control.
- Investor confidence: Maintaining interest rates at levels perceived as too low or politically driven could erode investor confidence in the long-term stability of the economy, Reuters says. This could make it more difficult or expensive for the government to borrow in the future, negating the benefits of initial rate cuts.
- Underlying fiscal imbalances: Even with lower interest rates, if the government's underlying spending and revenue policies create a structural deficit, the positive effect of lower rates might only be temporary.
think it thru.....
The Federal Deficit is tracked by the Treasury. You keep looking a models, I am looking at the actual deficit. Everything you have been saying is what could be... I am talking what is.
Make up your mind on timeframe. TRACKING actual deficits is a rear view mirror. PROJECTING what future deficits might look like in response to policy is windshield work.
You make a point, is the budget surplus a positive thing? First is it real? I guess it is reported by CBO, correct? The same models you can't trust. So. let's say it is real.
LOL you simply do not understand how all of this stuff works. You said above (correctly) that the Treasury reports actual outcomes at the end of each month, then suggest (incorrectly) that CBO also reports them. CBO does not report them. They simply plug the Treasury numbers into their projection models as baseline data.
The question on whether that is positive or not is how is it used? Did it lower the deficit? If so, than is it a great thing. Or did we pump it into more Government spending, only spending you like. Maybe Defense, we will need more National Guard monies now that they are Federalized. Than no, it is not a good thing. It is more of the same.
Month by month numbers matter, but they are not determinative for long term impacts. We had a (substantial and very rare) surplus in June. We had a larger than expected deficit in July. Only fools would argue that one number or the other is instructive as to the impact of Trump policies. The sober mind would average the two out to get a better idea of what they might tell us, and then remember that Trump's BBB did not get passed until the end of July. Anyone making any serious attempt to get a handle on where we might be headed would have to note that the spending which occurred in June/July is, by law, a Biden budget mitigated by Trump's payroll RIF, agency closures, etc...... Trump critics are not trying to do any of that. They're just engaging in insanity, squealing that he is cratering the federal government agency by agency yet not saving a dime.
Reality is, any impact the BBB might have, plus/minus, cannot be reasonably imputed because it was not actually signed into law until the two periods had elapsed. But you just gotta gotta complain about Trump very day because you hate his schtick so much, so here we are.....
Keep saying it. Maybe it will come true or closer to what I think you want is just for people to believe it is true. So far, we are seeing no indications of debt relief or lower spending that will get us to not havng to deficit spend. But, you will get the sheep to listen because you use big words...
whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:Waco1947 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:
good grief you are confused. YOU are the one simultaneously complaining about the deficit being too big for too long and Trump slashing too much too fast.
I am the one who's speaking reality - that it would politically and economically reckless to try to slash the budget to balance in a single cycle, in no small part because it is entitlements driving the deficit. The more pragmatic policy would be to cut as much as you can up front and try to grow your way into sustainable ratios. That is exactly what Trump's stated plan is. And he is making good progress on it.
Trump's budget raises CBO deficit projections, which are never accurate, because they have too many static assumptions and baseline projections, leading to nonsense like keeping the current tax rates in place equating to a budget cut.
You are going to look really, really foolish as things continue to improve......
You do have a blind spot here. For a reasonable, normally intelligent poster the fact that you can't see that "how" they are implementing policies can be a negative. No matter how noble or correct a policy is if the execution is handled in a boorish, amatuerish method it is a negative. DOGE was just that, the amatuerish, boorish implementation of a policy everyone pretty much agrees.
Every president promises to cut the size of government, but none of them ever do anything about it. We finally get one who does. And you insist that how he did it undermines the benefit of actually doing it?
A good comparison, Biden leaving Afghanistan. We all agree, including Trump, that we needed to get out of Afghanistan. Sound policy decision. The execution of that policy was amateurish, haphazard and ultimately a negative.
What a misanthropic analogy. The cuts Trump has made to civil service payroll, honoring decades-old GOP promises to eliminate agencies, etc......has been rendered to the level of the Abby Gate bombing in Kabul? All those cuts to government, because of how they were done, is now equivalent to the Taliban retaking Afghanistan?
Regardless of whether things get better, how those people were treated and the side show Trump turned it into will be a negative in future elections going forward. You will see Elon with a Chainsaw, Elon standing at parade rest behind Trump in staff meetings, and hear how the FAA, NOAA and others had to hire people back because of the amateurish way they did it.
So if he'd just been nicer about how he slashed payroll and decomissioned agencies, everything would be peachy? None of the entrenched interests would have complained had they been cut by hands wearing velvet gloves?
Was the policy good? Absolutely, if he wants to reduce the size of Government, he isn't the first, we all agree. We all agree the inclusion training and diversity distracted from the mission. How, was a disaster.
As for those number getting better. What timeframe are we talking? 6 months? 1 year? 2 years? 2028? In the short term, you will see revenue increases. What happens in the mid and long term?
So many problems with that last part.
1) CBO definitions are arbitrary, like extending current tax rates being equivalent to a tax cut.
2) CBO projections do not take future tariff revenues into account.
3) CBO projections are static, do not allow for any dynamic effect of stimulus or tax policies.
4) CBO projections do not take any of the DOGE waste/fraud/abuse cuts into account.
5) CBO projections do not take any of the passed or pending recissions packages into account
6) CBO projections do not take any of the civil service workforce reductions into account.
7) CBO projections do not take any of the DOGE process improvements into account (e.g. a single ERP for USG)
>>>DOGE fraud/abuse/waste numbers + annualized tariff revenues are over a quarter of the PROJECTED deficit.<<<
Again. Repeat after me:
-Slowing the rate of growth in government spending is a positive thing.
-Accelerating economic growth to generate more tax revenues is a positive thing.
-Trump has a pragmatic plan to grow our way into a viable financial situation.
-So far, Trump is making tangible, concrete progress on his plan.
The most unreasonable idea of all is that Trump could have done all that without making anyone angry.
Repeat after me, you have to actually have numbers that show it. But, once you get the "right" people in place, they will show a rosy picture, as delinquencies and foreclosures are rising...
The numbers show a USG budget surplus for the month of June, for the first time in decades. The numbers show economic growth beating expectations.
Those are positive numbers. right?
By the way, where did I mention CBO? You are the only one using CBO. Might want to move to another source...
LOL the deficit projections you are citing are the CBO generated numbers.
Is CPI good? Or are they against Trump? Just want to know before I look... That's right, you can't tell me, it depends on if it is good or bad...
The CPI numbers are nominal increases against worsening job numbers. That is instructive as the Fed has a dual mandate - to fight inflation AND facilitate full employment.
that notorious Maga rag USA Today says - mixed results.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2025/08/12/cpi-report-data-inflation-july/85618971007/
Mixed results is what one would reasonably expect with massive policy changes looming, most of which have only been in place 4-6 weeks.
Cutting interest rates lowers the federal deficit.Lowering the federal deficit reduces inflation pressures from deficit spending.
- Inflationary pressure: Artificially low interest rates for prolonged periods could risk igniting or re-igniting inflation, especially in a near-full employment economy, according to Reuters. Higher inflation could negate any savings on debt service costs by eroding the purchasing power of the dollar and potentially leading to higher future interest rates if the Federal Reserve is forced to act to bring inflation under control.
- Investor confidence: Maintaining interest rates at levels perceived as too low or politically driven could erode investor confidence in the long-term stability of the economy, Reuters says. This could make it more difficult or expensive for the government to borrow in the future, negating the benefits of initial rate cuts.
- Underlying fiscal imbalances: Even with lower interest rates, if the government's underlying spending and revenue policies create a structural deficit, the positive effect of lower rates might only be temporary.
think it thru.....
The Federal Deficit is tracked by the Treasury. You keep looking a models, I am looking at the actual deficit. Everything you have been saying is what could be... I am talking what is.
Make up your mind on timeframe. TRACKING actual deficits is a rear view mirror. PROJECTING what future deficits might look like in response to policy is windshield work.
You make a point, is the budget surplus a positive thing? First is it real? I guess it is reported by CBO, correct? The same models you can't trust. So. let's say it is real.
LOL you simply do not understand how all of this stuff works. You said above (correctly) that the Treasury reports actual outcomes at the end of each month, then suggest (incorrectly) that CBO also reports them. CBO does not report them. They simply plug the Treasury numbers into their projection models as baseline data.
The question on whether that is positive or not is how is it used? Did it lower the deficit? If so, than is it a great thing. Or did we pump it into more Government spending, only spending you like. Maybe Defense, we will need more National Guard monies now that they are Federalized. Than no, it is not a good thing. It is more of the same.
Month by month numbers matter, but they are not determinative for long term impacts. We had a (substantial and very rare) surplus in June. We had a larger than expected deficit in July. Only fools would argue that one number or the other is instructive as to the impact of Trump policies. The sober mind would average the two out to get a better idea of what they might tell us, and then remember that Trump's BBB did not get passed until the end of July. Anyone making any serious attempt to get a handle on where we might be headed would have to note that the spending which occurred in June/July is, by law, a Biden budget mitigated by Trump's payroll RIF, agency closures, etc...... Trump critics are not trying to do any of that. They're just engaging in insanity, squealing that he is cratering the federal government agency by agency yet not saving a dime.
Reality is, any impact the BBB might have, plus/minus, cannot be reasonably imputed because it was not actually signed into law until the two periods had elapsed. But you just gotta gotta complain about Trump very day because you hate his schtick so much, so here we are.....
Keep saying it. Maybe it will come true or closer to what I think you want is just for people to believe it is true. So far, we are seeing no indications of debt relief or lower spending that will get us to not havng to deficit spend. But, you will get the sheep to listen because you use big words...
lol
We actually did see an indication of lower spending in June...... (surplus).
We actually do see indications of lower spending in USG - reducing workforce an agency at a time.
We actually do see implementation of reforms that will lower operating costs (Invida ERP govt-wide, etc....).
-clawback efforts are inviting furious legal challenges.
-recissions packages are working their way thru Congress, billions of dollars at a time.
If none of that was real or consequential, why all the lawsuits to stop him from doing it?
Do you seriously mean to suggest that double digit cuts to discretionary spending will not have any impact on spending?
Other facts that are inconvenient to your argument:
-Trump inherited Biden's budget.
-it took 6 months for Congress to amend it (with the BBB) - Dems in lock-step to kill it.
-new budget negotiations (for FY2026) are just now starting (and Dems are apoplectic).
...and on and on and on....
Your suggestion that there have been no positive changes, no signs of improvement is simply disconnected from reality. Your suggestion that we go from a $1.9T deficit to balance in a single cycle is utterly unserious. The plan has been stated - to cut $1T out of spending, then grow the economy (and tax revenues) to cover the rest. There is a wide array of evidence that progress is being made on both.
but neverTrumpers gonna neverTrump........
Porteroso said:
Trump and Congress will have to spend less if we are going to make a real go at the deficit. We are not going in a good direction on that. They are increasing military spending. And we cut taxes, only to find out unemployment is starting to get serious. Nearly 1/4 of the country long term unemployed. The middle class is the spending class, which drives the economy.
And small businesses are struggling. Deregulation could really help some of them, but that seems a dream now. So far it is just bad news for many of them. A lot of uncertainty.
Porteroso said:
Trump and Congress will have to spend less if we are going to make a real go at the deficit. We are not going in a good direction on that. They are increasing military spending. And we cut taxes, only to find out unemployment is starting to get serious. Nearly 1/4 of the country long term unemployed. The middle class is the spending class, which drives the economy.
And small businesses are struggling. Deregulation could really help some of them, but that seems a dream now. So far it is just bad news for many of them. A lot of uncertainty.
FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:Waco1947 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:
good grief you are confused. YOU are the one simultaneously complaining about the deficit being too big for too long and Trump slashing too much too fast.
I am the one who's speaking reality - that it would politically and economically reckless to try to slash the budget to balance in a single cycle, in no small part because it is entitlements driving the deficit. The more pragmatic policy would be to cut as much as you can up front and try to grow your way into sustainable ratios. That is exactly what Trump's stated plan is. And he is making good progress on it.
Trump's budget raises CBO deficit projections, which are never accurate, because they have too many static assumptions and baseline projections, leading to nonsense like keeping the current tax rates in place equating to a budget cut.
You are going to look really, really foolish as things continue to improve......
You do have a blind spot here. For a reasonable, normally intelligent poster the fact that you can't see that "how" they are implementing policies can be a negative. No matter how noble or correct a policy is if the execution is handled in a boorish, amatuerish method it is a negative. DOGE was just that, the amatuerish, boorish implementation of a policy everyone pretty much agrees.
Every president promises to cut the size of government, but none of them ever do anything about it. We finally get one who does. And you insist that how he did it undermines the benefit of actually doing it?
A good comparison, Biden leaving Afghanistan. We all agree, including Trump, that we needed to get out of Afghanistan. Sound policy decision. The execution of that policy was amateurish, haphazard and ultimately a negative.
What a misanthropic analogy. The cuts Trump has made to civil service payroll, honoring decades-old GOP promises to eliminate agencies, etc......has been rendered to the level of the Abby Gate bombing in Kabul? All those cuts to government, because of how they were done, is now equivalent to the Taliban retaking Afghanistan?
Regardless of whether things get better, how those people were treated and the side show Trump turned it into will be a negative in future elections going forward. You will see Elon with a Chainsaw, Elon standing at parade rest behind Trump in staff meetings, and hear how the FAA, NOAA and others had to hire people back because of the amateurish way they did it.
So if he'd just been nicer about how he slashed payroll and decomissioned agencies, everything would be peachy? None of the entrenched interests would have complained had they been cut by hands wearing velvet gloves?
Was the policy good? Absolutely, if he wants to reduce the size of Government, he isn't the first, we all agree. We all agree the inclusion training and diversity distracted from the mission. How, was a disaster.
As for those number getting better. What timeframe are we talking? 6 months? 1 year? 2 years? 2028? In the short term, you will see revenue increases. What happens in the mid and long term?
So many problems with that last part.
1) CBO definitions are arbitrary, like extending current tax rates being equivalent to a tax cut.
2) CBO projections do not take future tariff revenues into account.
3) CBO projections are static, do not allow for any dynamic effect of stimulus or tax policies.
4) CBO projections do not take any of the DOGE waste/fraud/abuse cuts into account.
5) CBO projections do not take any of the passed or pending recissions packages into account
6) CBO projections do not take any of the civil service workforce reductions into account.
7) CBO projections do not take any of the DOGE process improvements into account (e.g. a single ERP for USG)
>>>DOGE fraud/abuse/waste numbers + annualized tariff revenues are over a quarter of the PROJECTED deficit.<<<
Again. Repeat after me:
-Slowing the rate of growth in government spending is a positive thing.
-Accelerating economic growth to generate more tax revenues is a positive thing.
-Trump has a pragmatic plan to grow our way into a viable financial situation.
-So far, Trump is making tangible, concrete progress on his plan.
The most unreasonable idea of all is that Trump could have done all that without making anyone angry.
Repeat after me, you have to actually have numbers that show it. But, once you get the "right" people in place, they will show a rosy picture, as delinquencies and foreclosures are rising...
The numbers show a USG budget surplus for the month of June, for the first time in decades. The numbers show economic growth beating expectations.
Those are positive numbers. right?
By the way, where did I mention CBO? You are the only one using CBO. Might want to move to another source...
LOL the deficit projections you are citing are the CBO generated numbers.
Is CPI good? Or are they against Trump? Just want to know before I look... That's right, you can't tell me, it depends on if it is good or bad...
The CPI numbers are nominal increases against worsening job numbers. That is instructive as the Fed has a dual mandate - to fight inflation AND facilitate full employment.
that notorious Maga rag USA Today says - mixed results.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2025/08/12/cpi-report-data-inflation-july/85618971007/
Mixed results is what one would reasonably expect with massive policy changes looming, most of which have only been in place 4-6 weeks.
Cutting interest rates lowers the federal deficit.Lowering the federal deficit reduces inflation pressures from deficit spending.
- Inflationary pressure: Artificially low interest rates for prolonged periods could risk igniting or re-igniting inflation, especially in a near-full employment economy, according to Reuters. Higher inflation could negate any savings on debt service costs by eroding the purchasing power of the dollar and potentially leading to higher future interest rates if the Federal Reserve is forced to act to bring inflation under control.
- Investor confidence: Maintaining interest rates at levels perceived as too low or politically driven could erode investor confidence in the long-term stability of the economy, Reuters says. This could make it more difficult or expensive for the government to borrow in the future, negating the benefits of initial rate cuts.
- Underlying fiscal imbalances: Even with lower interest rates, if the government's underlying spending and revenue policies create a structural deficit, the positive effect of lower rates might only be temporary.
think it thru.....
The Federal Deficit is tracked by the Treasury. You keep looking a models, I am looking at the actual deficit. Everything you have been saying is what could be... I am talking what is.
Make up your mind on timeframe. TRACKING actual deficits is a rear view mirror. PROJECTING what future deficits might look like in response to policy is windshield work.
You make a point, is the budget surplus a positive thing? First is it real? I guess it is reported by CBO, correct? The same models you can't trust. So. let's say it is real.
LOL you simply do not understand how all of this stuff works. You said above (correctly) that the Treasury reports actual outcomes at the end of each month, then suggest (incorrectly) that CBO also reports them. CBO does not report them. They simply plug the Treasury numbers into their projection models as baseline data.
The question on whether that is positive or not is how is it used? Did it lower the deficit? If so, than is it a great thing. Or did we pump it into more Government spending, only spending you like. Maybe Defense, we will need more National Guard monies now that they are Federalized. Than no, it is not a good thing. It is more of the same.
Month by month numbers matter, but they are not determinative for long term impacts. We had a (substantial and very rare) surplus in June. We had a larger than expected deficit in July. Only fools would argue that one number or the other is instructive as to the impact of Trump policies. The sober mind would average the two out to get a better idea of what they might tell us, and then remember that Trump's BBB did not get passed until the end of July. Anyone making any serious attempt to get a handle on where we might be headed would have to note that the spending which occurred in June/July is, by law, a Biden budget mitigated by Trump's payroll RIF, agency closures, etc...... Trump critics are not trying to do any of that. They're just engaging in insanity, squealing that he is cratering the federal government agency by agency yet not saving a dime.
Reality is, any impact the BBB might have, plus/minus, cannot be reasonably imputed because it was not actually signed into law until the two periods had elapsed. But you just gotta gotta complain about Trump very day because you hate his schtick so much, so here we are.....
Keep saying it. Maybe it will come true or closer to what I think you want is just for people to believe it is true. So far, we are seeing no indications of debt relief or lower spending that will get us to not havng to deficit spend. But, you will get the sheep to listen because you use big words...
lol
We actually did see an indication of lower spending in June...... (surplus).
We actually do see indications of lower spending in USG - reducing workforce an agency at a time.
We actually do see implementation of reforms that will lower operating costs (Invida ERP govt-wide, etc....).
-clawback efforts are inviting furious legal challenges.
-recissions packages are working their way thru Congress, billions of dollars at a time.
If none of that was real or consequential, why all the lawsuits to stop him from doing it?
Do you seriously mean to suggest that double digit cuts to discretionary spending will not have any impact on spending?
Other facts that are inconvenient to your argument:
-Trump inherited Biden's budget.
-it took 6 months for Congress to amend it (with the BBB) - Dems in lock-step to kill it.
-new budget negotiations (for FY2026) are just now starting (and Dems are apoplectic).
...and on and on and on....
Your suggestion that there have been no positive changes, no signs of improvement is simply disconnected from reality. Your suggestion that we go from a $1.9T deficit to balance in a single cycle is utterly unserious. The plan has been stated - to cut $1T out of spending, then grow the economy (and tax revenues) to cover the rest. There is a wide array of evidence that progress is being made on both.
but neverTrumpers gonna neverTrump........
What direction is that deficit going? Tell me when that is showing down, not up... Until then, it is all rhetoric, which you love pontificating.
National Deficit | U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data
whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:Waco1947 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:
good grief you are confused. YOU are the one simultaneously complaining about the deficit being too big for too long and Trump slashing too much too fast.
I am the one who's speaking reality - that it would politically and economically reckless to try to slash the budget to balance in a single cycle, in no small part because it is entitlements driving the deficit. The more pragmatic policy would be to cut as much as you can up front and try to grow your way into sustainable ratios. That is exactly what Trump's stated plan is. And he is making good progress on it.
Trump's budget raises CBO deficit projections, which are never accurate, because they have too many static assumptions and baseline projections, leading to nonsense like keeping the current tax rates in place equating to a budget cut.
You are going to look really, really foolish as things continue to improve......
You do have a blind spot here. For a reasonable, normally intelligent poster the fact that you can't see that "how" they are implementing policies can be a negative. No matter how noble or correct a policy is if the execution is handled in a boorish, amatuerish method it is a negative. DOGE was just that, the amatuerish, boorish implementation of a policy everyone pretty much agrees.
Every president promises to cut the size of government, but none of them ever do anything about it. We finally get one who does. And you insist that how he did it undermines the benefit of actually doing it?
A good comparison, Biden leaving Afghanistan. We all agree, including Trump, that we needed to get out of Afghanistan. Sound policy decision. The execution of that policy was amateurish, haphazard and ultimately a negative.
What a misanthropic analogy. The cuts Trump has made to civil service payroll, honoring decades-old GOP promises to eliminate agencies, etc......has been rendered to the level of the Abby Gate bombing in Kabul? All those cuts to government, because of how they were done, is now equivalent to the Taliban retaking Afghanistan?
Regardless of whether things get better, how those people were treated and the side show Trump turned it into will be a negative in future elections going forward. You will see Elon with a Chainsaw, Elon standing at parade rest behind Trump in staff meetings, and hear how the FAA, NOAA and others had to hire people back because of the amateurish way they did it.
So if he'd just been nicer about how he slashed payroll and decomissioned agencies, everything would be peachy? None of the entrenched interests would have complained had they been cut by hands wearing velvet gloves?
Was the policy good? Absolutely, if he wants to reduce the size of Government, he isn't the first, we all agree. We all agree the inclusion training and diversity distracted from the mission. How, was a disaster.
As for those number getting better. What timeframe are we talking? 6 months? 1 year? 2 years? 2028? In the short term, you will see revenue increases. What happens in the mid and long term?
So many problems with that last part.
1) CBO definitions are arbitrary, like extending current tax rates being equivalent to a tax cut.
2) CBO projections do not take future tariff revenues into account.
3) CBO projections are static, do not allow for any dynamic effect of stimulus or tax policies.
4) CBO projections do not take any of the DOGE waste/fraud/abuse cuts into account.
5) CBO projections do not take any of the passed or pending recissions packages into account
6) CBO projections do not take any of the civil service workforce reductions into account.
7) CBO projections do not take any of the DOGE process improvements into account (e.g. a single ERP for USG)
>>>DOGE fraud/abuse/waste numbers + annualized tariff revenues are over a quarter of the PROJECTED deficit.<<<
Again. Repeat after me:
-Slowing the rate of growth in government spending is a positive thing.
-Accelerating economic growth to generate more tax revenues is a positive thing.
-Trump has a pragmatic plan to grow our way into a viable financial situation.
-So far, Trump is making tangible, concrete progress on his plan.
The most unreasonable idea of all is that Trump could have done all that without making anyone angry.
Repeat after me, you have to actually have numbers that show it. But, once you get the "right" people in place, they will show a rosy picture, as delinquencies and foreclosures are rising...
The numbers show a USG budget surplus for the month of June, for the first time in decades. The numbers show economic growth beating expectations.
Those are positive numbers. right?
By the way, where did I mention CBO? You are the only one using CBO. Might want to move to another source...
LOL the deficit projections you are citing are the CBO generated numbers.
Is CPI good? Or are they against Trump? Just want to know before I look... That's right, you can't tell me, it depends on if it is good or bad...
The CPI numbers are nominal increases against worsening job numbers. That is instructive as the Fed has a dual mandate - to fight inflation AND facilitate full employment.
that notorious Maga rag USA Today says - mixed results.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2025/08/12/cpi-report-data-inflation-july/85618971007/
Mixed results is what one would reasonably expect with massive policy changes looming, most of which have only been in place 4-6 weeks.
Cutting interest rates lowers the federal deficit.Lowering the federal deficit reduces inflation pressures from deficit spending.
- Inflationary pressure: Artificially low interest rates for prolonged periods could risk igniting or re-igniting inflation, especially in a near-full employment economy, according to Reuters. Higher inflation could negate any savings on debt service costs by eroding the purchasing power of the dollar and potentially leading to higher future interest rates if the Federal Reserve is forced to act to bring inflation under control.
- Investor confidence: Maintaining interest rates at levels perceived as too low or politically driven could erode investor confidence in the long-term stability of the economy, Reuters says. This could make it more difficult or expensive for the government to borrow in the future, negating the benefits of initial rate cuts.
- Underlying fiscal imbalances: Even with lower interest rates, if the government's underlying spending and revenue policies create a structural deficit, the positive effect of lower rates might only be temporary.
think it thru.....
The Federal Deficit is tracked by the Treasury. You keep looking a models, I am looking at the actual deficit. Everything you have been saying is what could be... I am talking what is.
Make up your mind on timeframe. TRACKING actual deficits is a rear view mirror. PROJECTING what future deficits might look like in response to policy is windshield work.
You make a point, is the budget surplus a positive thing? First is it real? I guess it is reported by CBO, correct? The same models you can't trust. So. let's say it is real.
LOL you simply do not understand how all of this stuff works. You said above (correctly) that the Treasury reports actual outcomes at the end of each month, then suggest (incorrectly) that CBO also reports them. CBO does not report them. They simply plug the Treasury numbers into their projection models as baseline data.
The question on whether that is positive or not is how is it used? Did it lower the deficit? If so, than is it a great thing. Or did we pump it into more Government spending, only spending you like. Maybe Defense, we will need more National Guard monies now that they are Federalized. Than no, it is not a good thing. It is more of the same.
Month by month numbers matter, but they are not determinative for long term impacts. We had a (substantial and very rare) surplus in June. We had a larger than expected deficit in July. Only fools would argue that one number or the other is instructive as to the impact of Trump policies. The sober mind would average the two out to get a better idea of what they might tell us, and then remember that Trump's BBB did not get passed until the end of July. Anyone making any serious attempt to get a handle on where we might be headed would have to note that the spending which occurred in June/July is, by law, a Biden budget mitigated by Trump's payroll RIF, agency closures, etc...... Trump critics are not trying to do any of that. They're just engaging in insanity, squealing that he is cratering the federal government agency by agency yet not saving a dime.
Reality is, any impact the BBB might have, plus/minus, cannot be reasonably imputed because it was not actually signed into law until the two periods had elapsed. But you just gotta gotta complain about Trump very day because you hate his schtick so much, so here we are.....
Keep saying it. Maybe it will come true or closer to what I think you want is just for people to believe it is true. So far, we are seeing no indications of debt relief or lower spending that will get us to not havng to deficit spend. But, you will get the sheep to listen because you use big words...
lol
We actually did see an indication of lower spending in June...... (surplus).
We actually do see indications of lower spending in USG - reducing workforce an agency at a time.
We actually do see implementation of reforms that will lower operating costs (Invida ERP govt-wide, etc....).
-clawback efforts are inviting furious legal challenges.
-recissions packages are working their way thru Congress, billions of dollars at a time.
If none of that was real or consequential, why all the lawsuits to stop him from doing it?
Do you seriously mean to suggest that double digit cuts to discretionary spending will not have any impact on spending?
Other facts that are inconvenient to your argument:
-Trump inherited Biden's budget.
-it took 6 months for Congress to amend it (with the BBB) - Dems in lock-step to kill it.
-new budget negotiations (for FY2026) are just now starting (and Dems are apoplectic).
...and on and on and on....
Your suggestion that there have been no positive changes, no signs of improvement is simply disconnected from reality. Your suggestion that we go from a $1.9T deficit to balance in a single cycle is utterly unserious. The plan has been stated - to cut $1T out of spending, then grow the economy (and tax revenues) to cover the rest. There is a wide array of evidence that progress is being made on both.
but neverTrumpers gonna neverTrump........
What direction is that deficit going? Tell me when that is showing down, not up... Until then, it is all rhetoric, which you love pontificating.
National Deficit | U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data
well, you didn't post a terribly good data set to support your point, given that the link stops in 2024.
But if we look (at link below) at those CBO numbers you are so fond of, we see at the bottom of the first graphic, an estimate that 2025 will end up below 2024 AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP. (remember, that is the goal as stated in detail by Bessent (and posted here)...to grow the economy faster than the debt.) And the raw dollar totals are down: 2025 below 2024, 2026 below 2025. Not by significant amounts, for sure, but, then it's CBO numbers and they are usually worst-case.
So what we actually see if we look AND understand the data, is that Trump's plan, less than 30 days after passage into law, actually does appear to be moving us in a positive direction. Yet, here you sit, inventing out of whole cloth "no change at all."
Your posts are like the kids in the back who keep asking "are we there yet."
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61172
🚨BREAKING: Former AG Bill Barr testified under oath today that President Trump is not connected to the Epstein files, and if he were, Biden would have already leaked it:
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) August 18, 2025
“He said that he had never seen anything that would implicate President Trump in any of this, and that he… pic.twitter.com/AHZtqWR6Rl
KaiBear said:
Apparently the governor of New Mexico has declared a state of emergency in the area around Espanola ( north of Santa Fe ).
Criminal activity involving illegal drugs is causing ' rampant homelessness, family instability and overdoses'.
Local resources are 'overwhelmed' and she is now asking for Federal Assistance.
Good for her.
Hope Trump supports her actions in a positive non combative manner. Might encourage other Dems to do the same.
By the way …..have been to Espanola a few times while visiting various Indian Pueblos in the region. Was a **** hole even 10 years ago. Can't even imagine how bad it is now.
After months of stonewalling, calling Epstein files a hoax, and telling people nothing but porn exists in their possession, the administration now admits the files exist, and agrees to release some of them.
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) August 19, 2025
Americans want transparency though, not smoke and mirrors. https://t.co/KNDp6X6qbV
Assassin said:
FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:Waco1947 said:whiterock said:
that notorious Maga rag USA Today says - mixed results.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2025/08/12/cpi-report-data-inflation-july/85618971007/
Mixed results is what one would reasonably expect with massive policy changes looming, most of which have only been in place 4-6 weeks.
Cutting interest rates lowers the federal deficit.Lowering the federal deficit reduces inflation pressures from deficit spending.
- Inflationary pressure: Artificially low interest rates for prolonged periods could risk igniting or re-igniting inflation, especially in a near-full employment economy, according to Reuters. Higher inflation could negate any savings on debt service costs by eroding the purchasing power of the dollar and potentially leading to higher future interest rates if the Federal Reserve is forced to act to bring inflation under control.
- Investor confidence: Maintaining interest rates at levels perceived as too low or politically driven could erode investor confidence in the long-term stability of the economy, Reuters says. This could make it more difficult or expensive for the government to borrow in the future, negating the benefits of initial rate cuts.
- Underlying fiscal imbalances: Even with lower interest rates, if the government's underlying spending and revenue policies create a structural deficit, the positive effect of lower rates might only be temporary.
think it thru.....
The Federal Deficit is tracked by the Treasury. You keep looking a models, I am looking at the actual deficit. Everything you have been saying is what could be... I am talking what is.
Make up your mind on timeframe. TRACKING actual deficits is a rear view mirror. PROJECTING what future deficits might look like in response to policy is windshield work.
You make a point, is the budget surplus a positive thing? First is it real? I guess it is reported by CBO, correct? The same models you can't trust. So. let's say it is real.
LOL you simply do not understand how all of this stuff works. You said above (correctly) that the Treasury reports actual outcomes at the end of each month, then suggest (incorrectly) that CBO also reports them. CBO does not report them. They simply plug the Treasury numbers into their projection models as baseline data.
The question on whether that is positive or not is how is it used? Did it lower the deficit? If so, than is it a great thing. Or did we pump it into more Government spending, only spending you like. Maybe Defense, we will need more National Guard monies now that they are Federalized. Than no, it is not a good thing. It is more of the same.
Month by month numbers matter, but they are not determinative for long term impacts. We had a (substantial and very rare) surplus in June. We had a larger than expected deficit in July. Only fools would argue that one number or the other is instructive as to the impact of Trump policies. The sober mind would average the two out to get a better idea of what they might tell us, and then remember that Trump's BBB did not get passed until the end of July. Anyone making any serious attempt to get a handle on where we might be headed would have to note that the spending which occurred in June/July is, by law, a Biden budget mitigated by Trump's payroll RIF, agency closures, etc...... Trump critics are not trying to do any of that. They're just engaging in insanity, squealing that he is cratering the federal government agency by agency yet not saving a dime.
Reality is, any impact the BBB might have, plus/minus, cannot be reasonably imputed because it was not actually signed into law until the two periods had elapsed. But you just gotta gotta complain about Trump very day because you hate his schtick so much, so here we are.....
Keep saying it. Maybe it will come true or closer to what I think you want is just for people to believe it is true. So far, we are seeing no indications of debt relief or lower spending that will get us to not havng to deficit spend. But, you will get the sheep to listen because you use big words...
lol
We actually did see an indication of lower spending in June...... (surplus).
We actually do see indications of lower spending in USG - reducing workforce an agency at a time.
We actually do see implementation of reforms that will lower operating costs (Invida ERP govt-wide, etc....).
-clawback efforts are inviting furious legal challenges.
-recissions packages are working their way thru Congress, billions of dollars at a time.
If none of that was real or consequential, why all the lawsuits to stop him from doing it?
Do you seriously mean to suggest that double digit cuts to discretionary spending will not have any impact on spending?
Other facts that are inconvenient to your argument:
-Trump inherited Biden's budget.
-it took 6 months for Congress to amend it (with the BBB) - Dems in lock-step to kill it.
-new budget negotiations (for FY2026) are just now starting (and Dems are apoplectic).
...and on and on and on....
Your suggestion that there have been no positive changes, no signs of improvement is simply disconnected from reality. Your suggestion that we go from a $1.9T deficit to balance in a single cycle is utterly unserious. The plan has been stated - to cut $1T out of spending, then grow the economy (and tax revenues) to cover the rest. There is a wide array of evidence that progress is being made on both.
but neverTrumpers gonna neverTrump........
What direction is that deficit going? Tell me when that is showing down, not up... Until then, it is all rhetoric, which you love pontificating.
National Deficit | U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data
well, you didn't post a terribly good data set to support your point, given that the link stops in 2024.
But if we look (at link below) at those CBO numbers you are so fond of, we see at the bottom of the first graphic, an estimate that 2025 will end up below 2024 AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP. (remember, that is the goal as stated in detail by Bessent (and posted here)...to grow the economy faster than the debt.) And the raw dollar totals are down: 2025 below 2024, 2026 below 2025. Not by significant amounts, for sure, but, then it's CBO numbers and they are usually worst-case.
So what we actually see if we look AND understand the data, is that Trump's plan, less than 30 days after passage into law, actually does appear to be moving us in a positive direction. Yet, here you sit, inventing out of whole cloth "no change at all."
Your posts are like the kids in the back who keep asking "are we there yet."
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61172
It's the Treasury Department.
whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:Waco1947 said:whiterock said:
that notorious Maga rag USA Today says - mixed results.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2025/08/12/cpi-report-data-inflation-july/85618971007/
Mixed results is what one would reasonably expect with massive policy changes looming, most of which have only been in place 4-6 weeks.
Cutting interest rates lowers the federal deficit.Lowering the federal deficit reduces inflation pressures from deficit spending.
- Inflationary pressure: Artificially low interest rates for prolonged periods could risk igniting or re-igniting inflation, especially in a near-full employment economy, according to Reuters. Higher inflation could negate any savings on debt service costs by eroding the purchasing power of the dollar and potentially leading to higher future interest rates if the Federal Reserve is forced to act to bring inflation under control.
- Investor confidence: Maintaining interest rates at levels perceived as too low or politically driven could erode investor confidence in the long-term stability of the economy, Reuters says. This could make it more difficult or expensive for the government to borrow in the future, negating the benefits of initial rate cuts.
- Underlying fiscal imbalances: Even with lower interest rates, if the government's underlying spending and revenue policies create a structural deficit, the positive effect of lower rates might only be temporary.
think it thru.....
The Federal Deficit is tracked by the Treasury. You keep looking a models, I am looking at the actual deficit. Everything you have been saying is what could be... I am talking what is.
Make up your mind on timeframe. TRACKING actual deficits is a rear view mirror. PROJECTING what future deficits might look like in response to policy is windshield work.
You make a point, is the budget surplus a positive thing? First is it real? I guess it is reported by CBO, correct? The same models you can't trust. So. let's say it is real.
LOL you simply do not understand how all of this stuff works. You said above (correctly) that the Treasury reports actual outcomes at the end of each month, then suggest (incorrectly) that CBO also reports them. CBO does not report them. They simply plug the Treasury numbers into their projection models as baseline data.
The question on whether that is positive or not is how is it used? Did it lower the deficit? If so, than is it a great thing. Or did we pump it into more Government spending, only spending you like. Maybe Defense, we will need more National Guard monies now that they are Federalized. Than no, it is not a good thing. It is more of the same.
Month by month numbers matter, but they are not determinative for long term impacts. We had a (substantial and very rare) surplus in June. We had a larger than expected deficit in July. Only fools would argue that one number or the other is instructive as to the impact of Trump policies. The sober mind would average the two out to get a better idea of what they might tell us, and then remember that Trump's BBB did not get passed until the end of July. Anyone making any serious attempt to get a handle on where we might be headed would have to note that the spending which occurred in June/July is, by law, a Biden budget mitigated by Trump's payroll RIF, agency closures, etc...... Trump critics are not trying to do any of that. They're just engaging in insanity, squealing that he is cratering the federal government agency by agency yet not saving a dime.
Reality is, any impact the BBB might have, plus/minus, cannot be reasonably imputed because it was not actually signed into law until the two periods had elapsed. But you just gotta gotta complain about Trump very day because you hate his schtick so much, so here we are.....
Keep saying it. Maybe it will come true or closer to what I think you want is just for people to believe it is true. So far, we are seeing no indications of debt relief or lower spending that will get us to not havng to deficit spend. But, you will get the sheep to listen because you use big words...
lol
We actually did see an indication of lower spending in June...... (surplus).
We actually do see indications of lower spending in USG - reducing workforce an agency at a time.
We actually do see implementation of reforms that will lower operating costs (Invida ERP govt-wide, etc....).
-clawback efforts are inviting furious legal challenges.
-recissions packages are working their way thru Congress, billions of dollars at a time.
If none of that was real or consequential, why all the lawsuits to stop him from doing it?
Do you seriously mean to suggest that double digit cuts to discretionary spending will not have any impact on spending?
Other facts that are inconvenient to your argument:
-Trump inherited Biden's budget.
-it took 6 months for Congress to amend it (with the BBB) - Dems in lock-step to kill it.
-new budget negotiations (for FY2026) are just now starting (and Dems are apoplectic).
...and on and on and on....
Your suggestion that there have been no positive changes, no signs of improvement is simply disconnected from reality. Your suggestion that we go from a $1.9T deficit to balance in a single cycle is utterly unserious. The plan has been stated - to cut $1T out of spending, then grow the economy (and tax revenues) to cover the rest. There is a wide array of evidence that progress is being made on both.
but neverTrumpers gonna neverTrump........
What direction is that deficit going? Tell me when that is showing down, not up... Until then, it is all rhetoric, which you love pontificating.
National Deficit | U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data
well, you didn't post a terribly good data set to support your point, given that the link stops in 2024.
But if we look (at link below) at those CBO numbers you are so fond of, we see at the bottom of the first graphic, an estimate that 2025 will end up below 2024 AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP. (remember, that is the goal as stated in detail by Bessent (and posted here)...to grow the economy faster than the debt.) And the raw dollar totals are down: 2025 below 2024, 2026 below 2025. Not by significant amounts, for sure, but, then it's CBO numbers and they are usually worst-case.
So what we actually see if we look AND understand the data, is that Trump's plan, less than 30 days after passage into law, actually does appear to be moving us in a positive direction. Yet, here you sit, inventing out of whole cloth "no change at all."
Your posts are like the kids in the back who keep asking "are we there yet."
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61172
It's the Treasury Department.
from 2024.
You can't talk about trend lines in 2025 using only 2024 data.
All I did was grab a document from a source you have quoted that has 2025 data and future projections to show you that your statement of "no improvement" is factually refutable.
FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:Waco1947 said:whiterock said:
that notorious Maga rag USA Today says - mixed results.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2025/08/12/cpi-report-data-inflation-july/85618971007/
Mixed results is what one would reasonably expect with massive policy changes looming, most of which have only been in place 4-6 weeks.
Cutting interest rates lowers the federal deficit.Lowering the federal deficit reduces inflation pressures from deficit spending.
- Inflationary pressure: Artificially low interest rates for prolonged periods could risk igniting or re-igniting inflation, especially in a near-full employment economy, according to Reuters. Higher inflation could negate any savings on debt service costs by eroding the purchasing power of the dollar and potentially leading to higher future interest rates if the Federal Reserve is forced to act to bring inflation under control.
- Investor confidence: Maintaining interest rates at levels perceived as too low or politically driven could erode investor confidence in the long-term stability of the economy, Reuters says. This could make it more difficult or expensive for the government to borrow in the future, negating the benefits of initial rate cuts.
- Underlying fiscal imbalances: Even with lower interest rates, if the government's underlying spending and revenue policies create a structural deficit, the positive effect of lower rates might only be temporary.
think it thru.....
The Federal Deficit is tracked by the Treasury. You keep looking a models, I am looking at the actual deficit. Everything you have been saying is what could be... I am talking what is.
Make up your mind on timeframe. TRACKING actual deficits is a rear view mirror. PROJECTING what future deficits might look like in response to policy is windshield work.
You make a point, is the budget surplus a positive thing? First is it real? I guess it is reported by CBO, correct? The same models you can't trust. So. let's say it is real.
LOL you simply do not understand how all of this stuff works. You said above (correctly) that the Treasury reports actual outcomes at the end of each month, then suggest (incorrectly) that CBO also reports them. CBO does not report them. They simply plug the Treasury numbers into their projection models as baseline data.
The question on whether that is positive or not is how is it used? Did it lower the deficit? If so, than is it a great thing. Or did we pump it into more Government spending, only spending you like. Maybe Defense, we will need more National Guard monies now that they are Federalized. Than no, it is not a good thing. It is more of the same.
Month by month numbers matter, but they are not determinative for long term impacts. We had a (substantial and very rare) surplus in June. We had a larger than expected deficit in July. Only fools would argue that one number or the other is instructive as to the impact of Trump policies. The sober mind would average the two out to get a better idea of what they might tell us, and then remember that Trump's BBB did not get passed until the end of July. Anyone making any serious attempt to get a handle on where we might be headed would have to note that the spending which occurred in June/July is, by law, a Biden budget mitigated by Trump's payroll RIF, agency closures, etc...... Trump critics are not trying to do any of that. They're just engaging in insanity, squealing that he is cratering the federal government agency by agency yet not saving a dime.
Reality is, any impact the BBB might have, plus/minus, cannot be reasonably imputed because it was not actually signed into law until the two periods had elapsed. But you just gotta gotta complain about Trump very day because you hate his schtick so much, so here we are.....
Keep saying it. Maybe it will come true or closer to what I think you want is just for people to believe it is true. So far, we are seeing no indications of debt relief or lower spending that will get us to not havng to deficit spend. But, you will get the sheep to listen because you use big words...
lol
We actually did see an indication of lower spending in June...... (surplus).
We actually do see indications of lower spending in USG - reducing workforce an agency at a time.
We actually do see implementation of reforms that will lower operating costs (Invida ERP govt-wide, etc....).
-clawback efforts are inviting furious legal challenges.
-recissions packages are working their way thru Congress, billions of dollars at a time.
If none of that was real or consequential, why all the lawsuits to stop him from doing it?
Do you seriously mean to suggest that double digit cuts to discretionary spending will not have any impact on spending?
Other facts that are inconvenient to your argument:
-Trump inherited Biden's budget.
-it took 6 months for Congress to amend it (with the BBB) - Dems in lock-step to kill it.
-new budget negotiations (for FY2026) are just now starting (and Dems are apoplectic).
...and on and on and on....
Your suggestion that there have been no positive changes, no signs of improvement is simply disconnected from reality. Your suggestion that we go from a $1.9T deficit to balance in a single cycle is utterly unserious. The plan has been stated - to cut $1T out of spending, then grow the economy (and tax revenues) to cover the rest. There is a wide array of evidence that progress is being made on both.
but neverTrumpers gonna neverTrump........
What direction is that deficit going? Tell me when that is showing down, not up... Until then, it is all rhetoric, which you love pontificating.
National Deficit | U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data
well, you didn't post a terribly good data set to support your point, given that the link stops in 2024.
But if we look (at link below) at those CBO numbers you are so fond of, we see at the bottom of the first graphic, an estimate that 2025 will end up below 2024 AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP. (remember, that is the goal as stated in detail by Bessent (and posted here)...to grow the economy faster than the debt.) And the raw dollar totals are down: 2025 below 2024, 2026 below 2025. Not by significant amounts, for sure, but, then it's CBO numbers and they are usually worst-case.
So what we actually see if we look AND understand the data, is that Trump's plan, less than 30 days after passage into law, actually does appear to be moving us in a positive direction. Yet, here you sit, inventing out of whole cloth "no change at all."
Your posts are like the kids in the back who keep asking "are we there yet."
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61172
It's the Treasury Department.
from 2024.
You can't talk about trend lines in 2025 using only 2024 data.
All I did was grab a document from a source you have quoted that has 2025 data and future projections to show you that your statement of "no improvement" is factually refutable.
I am done doing this with you anymore. I get it, you understand at a higher level than the rest of us. EVERYTHING Donald does is good, we will take your word for it. You will not see anything but a positive because you like him. There is always an excuse to why Trump is right...
FLBear5630 said:Assassin said:
So if true, once again not a release of documents just a speculation that because Biden didn't show something it must not exist, just release the documents. If he is not in there release? Why the coy assumptions and logic jumps?
KaiBear said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:Waco1947 said:whiterock said:
that notorious Maga rag USA Today says - mixed results.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2025/08/12/cpi-report-data-inflation-july/85618971007/
Mixed results is what one would reasonably expect with massive policy changes looming, most of which have only been in place 4-6 weeks.
Cutting interest rates lowers the federal deficit.Lowering the federal deficit reduces inflation pressures from deficit spending.
- Inflationary pressure: Artificially low interest rates for prolonged periods could risk igniting or re-igniting inflation, especially in a near-full employment economy, according to Reuters. Higher inflation could negate any savings on debt service costs by eroding the purchasing power of the dollar and potentially leading to higher future interest rates if the Federal Reserve is forced to act to bring inflation under control.
- Investor confidence: Maintaining interest rates at levels perceived as too low or politically driven could erode investor confidence in the long-term stability of the economy, Reuters says. This could make it more difficult or expensive for the government to borrow in the future, negating the benefits of initial rate cuts.
- Underlying fiscal imbalances: Even with lower interest rates, if the government's underlying spending and revenue policies create a structural deficit, the positive effect of lower rates might only be temporary.
think it thru.....
The Federal Deficit is tracked by the Treasury. You keep looking a models, I am looking at the actual deficit. Everything you have been saying is what could be... I am talking what is.
Make up your mind on timeframe. TRACKING actual deficits is a rear view mirror. PROJECTING what future deficits might look like in response to policy is windshield work.
You make a point, is the budget surplus a positive thing? First is it real? I guess it is reported by CBO, correct? The same models you can't trust. So. let's say it is real.
LOL you simply do not understand how all of this stuff works. You said above (correctly) that the Treasury reports actual outcomes at the end of each month, then suggest (incorrectly) that CBO also reports them. CBO does not report them. They simply plug the Treasury numbers into their projection models as baseline data.
The question on whether that is positive or not is how is it used? Did it lower the deficit? If so, than is it a great thing. Or did we pump it into more Government spending, only spending you like. Maybe Defense, we will need more National Guard monies now that they are Federalized. Than no, it is not a good thing. It is more of the same.
Month by month numbers matter, but they are not determinative for long term impacts. We had a (substantial and very rare) surplus in June. We had a larger than expected deficit in July. Only fools would argue that one number or the other is instructive as to the impact of Trump policies. The sober mind would average the two out to get a better idea of what they might tell us, and then remember that Trump's BBB did not get passed until the end of July. Anyone making any serious attempt to get a handle on where we might be headed would have to note that the spending which occurred in June/July is, by law, a Biden budget mitigated by Trump's payroll RIF, agency closures, etc...... Trump critics are not trying to do any of that. They're just engaging in insanity, squealing that he is cratering the federal government agency by agency yet not saving a dime.
Reality is, any impact the BBB might have, plus/minus, cannot be reasonably imputed because it was not actually signed into law until the two periods had elapsed. But you just gotta gotta complain about Trump very day because you hate his schtick so much, so here we are.....
Keep saying it. Maybe it will come true or closer to what I think you want is just for people to believe it is true. So far, we are seeing no indications of debt relief or lower spending that will get us to not havng to deficit spend. But, you will get the sheep to listen because you use big words...
lol
We actually did see an indication of lower spending in June...... (surplus).
We actually do see indications of lower spending in USG - reducing workforce an agency at a time.
We actually do see implementation of reforms that will lower operating costs (Invida ERP govt-wide, etc....).
-clawback efforts are inviting furious legal challenges.
-recissions packages are working their way thru Congress, billions of dollars at a time.
If none of that was real or consequential, why all the lawsuits to stop him from doing it?
Do you seriously mean to suggest that double digit cuts to discretionary spending will not have any impact on spending?
Other facts that are inconvenient to your argument:
-Trump inherited Biden's budget.
-it took 6 months for Congress to amend it (with the BBB) - Dems in lock-step to kill it.
-new budget negotiations (for FY2026) are just now starting (and Dems are apoplectic).
...and on and on and on....
Your suggestion that there have been no positive changes, no signs of improvement is simply disconnected from reality. Your suggestion that we go from a $1.9T deficit to balance in a single cycle is utterly unserious. The plan has been stated - to cut $1T out of spending, then grow the economy (and tax revenues) to cover the rest. There is a wide array of evidence that progress is being made on both.
but neverTrumpers gonna neverTrump........
What direction is that deficit going? Tell me when that is showing down, not up... Until then, it is all rhetoric, which you love pontificating.
National Deficit | U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data
well, you didn't post a terribly good data set to support your point, given that the link stops in 2024.
But if we look (at link below) at those CBO numbers you are so fond of, we see at the bottom of the first graphic, an estimate that 2025 will end up below 2024 AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP. (remember, that is the goal as stated in detail by Bessent (and posted here)...to grow the economy faster than the debt.) And the raw dollar totals are down: 2025 below 2024, 2026 below 2025. Not by significant amounts, for sure, but, then it's CBO numbers and they are usually worst-case.
So what we actually see if we look AND understand the data, is that Trump's plan, less than 30 days after passage into law, actually does appear to be moving us in a positive direction. Yet, here you sit, inventing out of whole cloth "no change at all."
Your posts are like the kids in the back who keep asking "are we there yet."
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61172
It's the Treasury Department.
from 2024.
You can't talk about trend lines in 2025 using only 2024 data.
All I did was grab a document from a source you have quoted that has 2025 data and future projections to show you that your statement of "no improvement" is factually refutable.
I am done doing this with you anymore. I get it, you understand at a higher level than the rest of us. EVERYTHING Donald does is good, we will take your word for it. You will not see anything but a positive because you like him. There is always an excuse to why Trump is right...
Trump is not always right...no one is.
However the difference in job performance between Biden and Trump is staggering.
FLBear5630 said:Assassin said:
So if true, once again not a release of documents just a speculation that because Biden didn't show something it must not exist, just release the documents. If he is not in there release? Why the coy assumptions and logic jumps?
Harrison Bergeron said:FLBear5630 said:Assassin said:
So if true, once again not a release of documents just a speculation that because Biden didn't show something it must not exist, just release the documents. If he is not in there release? Why the coy assumptions and logic jumps?
That's not how the system works. Are you under the impression their is a literal list with famous people and who they boinked?
FLBear5630 said:Assassin said:
So if true, once again not a release of documents just a speculation that because Biden didn't show something it must not exist, just release the documents. If he is not in there release? Why the coy assumptions and logic jumps?
Harrison Bergeron said:FLBear5630 said:Assassin said:
So if true, once again not a release of documents just a speculation that because Biden didn't show something it must not exist, just release the documents. If he is not in there release? Why the coy assumptions and logic jumps?
That's not how the system works. Are you under the impression their is a literal list with famous people and who they boinked?
GrowlTowel said:FLBear5630 said:Assassin said:
So if true, once again not a release of documents just a speculation that because Biden didn't show something it must not exist, just release the documents. If he is not in there release? Why the coy assumptions and logic jumps?
I could see your point of view if it was just Biden didn't release. However, Biden not releasing Trump/Epstein documents is only a nominal point considering what was done to Trump to keep him from winning a second term. Lawfare, shoot to kill searches of his home, assignation attempts, ballot removal, January 6th commission, two impeachments - among others.
Do you really believe if the left had a good Epstein connection, it would not have been leaked prior to half of their other shenanigans? The left always leaks damaging information about republicans - consider the leak of the Dobbs decision.
As such, there are only three logical conclusions:
1. The information in the Epstein files is so damaging to leftists that anything related to Trump will not outweigh that damage.
2. The information is so damaging to US interests that Trump cannot release anything meaningful - leaving the left only the innuendo card to play.
3. There is nothing damaging to Trump in the Epstein files - leaving nothing for him to release to clear his name.
KaiBear said:GrowlTowel said:FLBear5630 said:Assassin said:
So if true, once again not a release of documents just a speculation that because Biden didn't show something it must not exist, just release the documents. If he is not in there release? Why the coy assumptions and logic jumps?
I could see your point of view if it was just Biden didn't release. However, Biden not releasing Trump/Epstein documents is only a nominal point considering what was done to Trump to keep him from winning a second term. Lawfare, shoot to kill searches of his home, assignation attempts, ballot removal, January 6th commission, two impeachments - among others.
Do you really believe if the left had a good Epstein connection, it would not have been leaked prior to half of their other shenanigans? The left always leaks damaging information about republicans - consider the leak of the Dobbs decision.
As such, there are only three logical conclusions:
1. The information in the Epstein files is so damaging to leftists that anything related to Trump will not outweigh that damage.
2. The information is so damaging to US interests that Trump cannot release anything meaningful - leaving the left only the innuendo card to play.
3. There is nothing damaging to Trump in the Epstein files - leaving nothing for him to release to clear his name.
All true points.
Unfortunately if one is devoid of common sense such obvious realities merely bounce off the forehead.
Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:FLBear5630 said:Assassin said:
So if true, once again not a release of documents just a speculation that because Biden didn't show something it must not exist, just release the documents. If he is not in there release? Why the coy assumptions and logic jumps?
That's not how the system works. Are you under the impression their is a literal list with famous people and who they boinked?
To be fair, Bondi basically said there was.
Yeah what changed? https://t.co/PeBSPbPiKs
— Theo Von (@TheoVon) July 16, 2025
