The US is borrowing too much money, and that's what's driving rates higher, former Dallas Fed President says

[Crnr2Crnr]

1 minute ago, racer254 said:

You got trump out and in doing so you helped install biden, a 40+ year politician.  Good job, pat yourself on the back.  Yet you are still complaining about trump and still complaining about spending.  Seems to be working out good for you.  Let's not forget, the abortion issue....another good job.

you're a certified loon... 

[Highmark]

51 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

in 2020 I voted for Jo Jorgensen, which means I didn't vote for Trump or Biden, which in your pea brain equates to me 'getting him out'??!!!!!  whatta' fucked up rational you attempt to utilize.

why can't you answer a few simple questions?  is it because you have a simple mind?  

Have you always voted Republican?   Care to discuss the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan for starters?  We hadn't paid those bills yet.. so here's a shiny tax cut to pay down the debt. 

 

 

 

 

No doubt Iraq was an unneeded clusterfuck.   Some of Afghanistan was justifiable.   The mistake was including the Taliban.  

BTW Iraq had significant bi-partisan support.   It wasn't just a Republican fuck up.  

[racer254]

8 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

you're a certified loon... 

And where is jo jorgenson?

[Crnr2Crnr]

10 minutes ago, Highmark said:

No doubt Iraq was an unneeded clusterfuck.   Some of Afghanistan was justifiable.   The mistake was including the Taliban.  

BTW Iraq had significant bi-partisan support.   It wasn't just a Republican fuck up.  

agreed... but we still owe $ for both crusades, quite a bit in fact.  how long can we just keep kicking cans down the road without increasing the actual amount of debt?  spending cuts alone aren't going to amount to jack shit in the big picture... but it would be a start.

maybe we should start selling stuff... what's Florida worth these days?  

6 minutes ago, racer254 said:

And where is jo jorgenson?

the same place Trump is... not in the oval office.  

[racer254]

1 minute ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

agreed... but we still owe $ for both crusades, quite a bit in fact.  how long can we just keep kicking cans down the road without increasing the actual amount of debt?  spending cuts alone aren't going to amount to jack shit in the big picture... but it would be a start.

maybe we should start selling stuff... what's Florida worth these days?  

the same place Trump is... not in the oval office.  

Good job getting trump out and installing biden.  This proves that was your goal.

[Highmark]

4 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

agreed... but we still owe $ for both crusades, quite a bit in fact.  how long can we just keep kicking cans down the road without increasing the actual amount of debt?  spending cuts alone aren't going to amount to jack shit in the big picture... but it would be a start.

maybe we should start selling stuff... what's Florida worth these days?  

the same place Trump is... not in the oval office.  

And tax hikes do nothing but stifle growth.   Taking more money out of the hands of the individual and into the coffers of govt never works over the long haul.   Keep Florida....sell NY and CA.    

[Crnr2Crnr]

1 minute ago, racer254 said:

Good job getting trump out and installing biden.  This proves that was your goal.

do you take special medication to be this dumb or is it genetic? 

 

 

 

in the meantime... $2B per day in interest on our current outstanding debt. 

 

[Crnr2Crnr]

Just now, Highmark said:

And tax hikes do nothing but stifle growth.   Taking more money out of the hands of the individual and into the coffers of govt never works over the long haul.   Keep Florida....sell NY and CA.    

so how do we arrive at a time and place where we're not adding to the debt and maintaining the current level. 

these are truly astronomical numbers we're discussing... where as retard refuses to acknowledge they even exist. 

CA would bring good $ but in order for our proposal to be bipartisan we're going to have to sell TX as well. 

[Anler]

That guy is misleading you. Our leaders are STEALING too much money. Everything that goes overseas or out of the country is stolen. 

[f7ben]

13 minutes ago, Anler said:

That guy is misleading you. Our leaders are STEALING too much money. Everything that goes overseas or out of the country is stolen. 

100% 

[Crnr2Crnr]

12 minutes ago, Anler said:

That guy is misleading you. Our leaders are STEALING too much money. Everything that goes overseas or out of the country is stolen. 

should we stop paying Gabby?

 

'they' can't lock all of us up...

[Highmark]

26 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

so how do we arrive at a time and place where we're not adding to the debt and maintaining the current level. 

these are truly astronomical numbers we're discussing... where as retard refuses to acknowledge they even exist. 

CA would bring good $ but in order for our proposal to be bipartisan we're going to have to sell TX as well. 

Govt technically cannot grow the economy long term.   Massive cuts in spending and keep more money in the hands of the people who can actually create growth.   Realistically it will be difficult to balance the budget without cuts to mandatory spending as its such a huge percentage of the budget.

The biggest joke is how every admin comes up with a 10 yr plan to "balance" the budget when the most they will be around is 4 and budgets are re-written every year (or are supposed to be).

I will always go against tax increases as govt cannot be controlled to simply not spend it on new or increased programs size.  

 

  

Edited November 2, 2023 by Highmark

[f7ben]

7 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Govt technically cannot grow the economy long term.   Massive cuts in spending and keep more money in the hands of the people who can actually create growth.   Realistically it will be difficult to balance the budget without cuts to mandatory spending as its such a huge percentage of the budget.

The biggest joke is how every admin comes up with a 10 yr plan to "balance" the budget when the most they will be around is 4 and budgets are re-written every year (or are supposed to be).

I will always go against tax increases as govt cannot be controlled to simply not spend it on new or increased programs size.  

 

  

I guess the government can grow the economy long term because they have been doing it through debt cycles for 50 years. There has been little to no organic growth since what???? 1972 or so?

[Crnr2Crnr]

5 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Govt technically cannot grow the economy long term.   Massive cuts in spending and keep more money in the hands of the people who can actually create growth.   Realistically it will be difficult to balance the budget without cuts to mandatory spending as its such a huge percentage of the budget.

The biggest joke is how every admin comes up with a 10 yr plan to "balance" the budget when the most they will be around is 4 and budgets are re-written every year (or are supposed to be).

I will always go against tax increases as govt cannot be controlled to simply not spend it on new or increased programs.  

  

the sheer size of our government and personnel to administrate the functions of government has grown at an unreasonable rate.  bloated, inefficient and largely ineffective.  slow and reverse course on the number of employees, evaluate the scope of their agencies tasks and start trimming.  

Look at 1982 to current...

https://www.statista.com/statistics/204535/number-of-governmental-employees-in-the-us/

when the biggest 'job Creator' in the past eighty years is the government... we've gotta problem. 

[Highmark]

26 minutes ago, f7ben said:

I guess the government can grow the economy long term because they have been doing it through debt cycles for 50 years. There has been little to no organic growth since what???? 1972 or so?

Link?

I disagree....the American economy, the American worker and American entrepreneurship has led to organic growth.  Govt spending only stifles it. 

Technically I don't find increase in GDP on deficit spending "growth." 

 

[Highmark]

33 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

the sheer size of our government and personnel to administrate the functions of government has grown at an unreasonable rate.  bloated, inefficient and largely ineffective.  slow and reverse course on the number of employees, evaluate the scope of their agencies tasks and start trimming.  

Look at 1982 to current...

https://www.statista.com/statistics/204535/number-of-governmental-employees-in-the-us/

when the biggest 'job Creator' in the past eighty years is the government... we've gotta problem. 

Absolutely couldn't agree more so lets increase taxes so they can hire and grow govt more?   Makes absolutely no sense.

You have to give the politicians credit....they've propagandized the American people to think a reduction in growth is actually a cut in spending.  

Edited November 2, 2023 by Highmark

[Crnr2Crnr]

6 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Absolutely couldn't agree more so lets increase taxes so they can hire and grow govt more?   Makes absolutely no sense.

You have to give the politicians credit....they've propagandized the American people to think a reduction in growth is actually a cut in spending.  

both parties created this monstrosity over a long period of time, so it's illogical to just start chopping departments and cutting off heads in a fell swoop as the impact would be detrimental.  hence, taking the scissors and trimming everything in a gradual pre-planned approach, consolidate, streamline and enhance efficiency... as if the government was ran by a CEO, board of directors and bean counters. 

a pipe dream right?   

this was what Ross Perot was proposing thirty years ago, and America rejected it.  

if Trump were smart (he really isn't) he would be running towards a fiscally conservative campaign platform rather than focusing on his 'revenge 2024' tour and continuously whipping up his 'base' which is likely to support him no matter what comes out of his mouth.

one man cannot drain the swamp alone, as the swamp is vast and deep.  this will require consensus and will power, neither of which he or anyone currently has from my vantage point. 

oh well, it's not like the rest of the country reads anything we post or say here any longer... thanks to Snotty.   

[racer254]

13 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

both parties created this monstrosity over a long period of time, so it's illogical to just start chopping departments and cutting off heads in a fell swoop as the impact would be detrimental.  hence, taking the scissors and trimming everything in a gradual pre-planned approach, consolidate, streamline and enhance efficiency... as if the government was ran by a CEO, board of directors and bean counters. 

a pipe dream right?   

this was what Ross Perot was proposing thirty years ago, and America rejected it.  

if Trump were smart (he really isn't) he would be running towards a fiscally conservative campaign platform rather than focusing on his 'revenge 2024' tour and continuously whipping up his 'base' which is likely to support him no matter what comes out of his mouth.

one man cannot drain the swamp alone, as the swamp is vast and deep.  this will require consensus and will power, neither of which he or anyone currently has from my vantage point. 

oh well, it's not like the rest of the country reads anything we post or say here any longer... thanks to Snotty.   

The thought process is astonishing.   First you think we need someone like perot, then when we get close they have you convinced that he/she can't do it.  It would not matter if it was trump or someone else.  They would convince you.

[Highmark]

18 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

both parties created this monstrosity over a long period of time, so it's illogical to just start chopping departments and cutting off heads in a fell swoop as the impact would be detrimental.  hence, taking the scissors and trimming everything in a gradual pre-planned approach, consolidate, streamline and enhance efficiency... as if the government was ran by a CEO, board of directors and bean counters. 

a pipe dream right?   

this was what Ross Perot was proposing thirty years ago, and America rejected it.  

if Trump were smart (he really isn't) he would be running towards a fiscally conservative campaign platform rather than focusing on his 'revenge 2024' tour and continuously whipping up his 'base' which is likely to support him no matter what comes out of his mouth.

one man cannot drain the swamp alone, as the swamp is vast and deep.  this will require consensus and will power, neither of which he or anyone currently has from my vantage point. 

oh well, it's not like the rest of the country reads anything we post or say here any longer... thanks to Snotty.   

I agree a gradual approach in some area's others we need to rip the band-aid off so to speak and there would be some short term pain for those in the govt sectors especially. 

I agree I wish Trump would campaign much harder on reduced spending.   I wish he would have took the hit while in office and just shut govt down and made congress override vetoing any budget with large deficits.   I've always been critical of him on spending.

Honestly its hard for a candidate to get elected when talking significant spending cuts.   There are too many people including those on the right and middle who agree with much of it.  You cannot win talking significant mandatory spending cuts period and its close to 66% of the budget.  Even the mere mention of looking at SS and Medicare cost controls is an election death sentence.  Guess we will have to wait until more boomers die off.      

We have people that HATE big govt but love the idea of them taking over all of HC.   Its insane. 

Edited November 2, 2023 by Highmark

[Crnr2Crnr]

1 minute ago, racer254 said:

The thought process is astonishing.   First you think we need someone like perot, then when we get close they have you convinced that he/she can't do it.  It would not matter if it was trump or someone else.  They would convince you.

you never got close with Trump and never will... but your thick skull, lack of mindfulness in regards to group think and winning consensus to accomplish a goal rather than forcing your ambitions and desires upon others fits the Trump narrative perfectly. 

Perot took 19% of the vote single handily as a third party candidate running against Bush and Clinton.  Trump couldn't even approach that number if he ran as an independent... you know it and so does he. 

eat a dick...

[Crnr2Crnr]

8 minutes ago, Highmark said:

I agree a gradual approach in some area's others we need to rip the band-aid off so to speak and there would be some short term pain for those in the govt sectors especially. 

I agree I wish Trump would campaign much harder on reduced spending.   I wish he would have took the hit while in office and just shut govt down and made congress override vetoing any budget with large deficits.   I've always been critical of him on spending.

Honestly its hard for a candidate to get elected when talking significant spending cuts.   There are too many people including those on the right and middle who agree with much of it.  You cannot win talking significant mandatory spending cuts period and its close to 66% of the budget.  Even the mere mention of looking at SS and Medicare cost controls is an election death sentence.  Guess we will have to wait until more boomers die off.      

We have people that HATE big govt but love the idea of them taking over all of HC.   Its insane. 

 

 

 

[Rod]

On 11/1/2023 at 6:15 AM, Crnr2Crnr said:

The US is borrowing this quarter will amount $8.66 billion dollars a day. 

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/bonds/us-debt-federal-deficit-interest-rates-fed-hikes-treasury-issuance-2023-10

 

But it’s all worth it as long as you stand with Ukraine 

[Crnr2Crnr]

1 minute ago, ACE said:

But it’s all worth it as long as you stand with Ukraine 

thanks, I care about your opinion 

[racer254]

16 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

you never got close with Trump and never will... but your thick skull, lack of mindfulness in regards to group think and winning consensus to accomplish a goal rather than forcing your ambitions and desires upon others fits the Trump narrative perfectly. 

Perot took 19% of the vote single handily as a third party candidate running against Bush and Clinton.  Trump couldn't even approach that number if he ran as an independent... you know it and so does he. 

eat a dick...

LOL.  Did you vote for Ross Perot?  Trump is the closest we have ever come to a 3rd party candidate, but his ego bothers you. 

[Rod]

3 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

thanks, I care about your opinion 

You honestly only care about what tv man tells you to care about