US Erection 12 *AND* 16 *AND* 20 *AND* 22 *AND* 24 *AND* Beyond

[BCExpat]

Vance in 2028 is real.

Harris v Vance would have been a good debate.

How long before Trump gets jealous and bashes Vance?

Is this a troll post 5th

Not at all Rats. The guy is ruled by his ego. That and any chance to grift he's there. Trump in a nutshell.

Brainwashed anyone

Why so dismissive Rats? Why else would anyone argue about crowd sizes at their own inauguration? Kamala easily derailed him about it almost 4 years later in the debate lol. Trump eagerly boasts about how he's the best at everything, an expert in a variety of inane subject areas, he hires the best people, has the best policies, the best economy, the guy must be the messiah?
And his followers seem to gobble it up. Has he ever done anything wrong Rats?

I think Trump is a complete asshat, but he is still miles ahead of the Harris-Walz left wing, woke, eco-terrorist, tax and spend, open border policy, social justice warriors.

[5thhorseman]

... tax and spend ...

Biden added $6.65 trillion to the debt over 4 years.

Trump added $8.18 trillion to the debt over 4 years.

Who is "tax and spend"?

[UWSaint]

... tax and spend ...

Biden added $6.65 trillion to the debt over 4 years.

Trump added $8.18 trillion to the debt over 4 years.

Who is "tax and spend"?

Spending during the Trump administration, thanks largely to a misguided Covid package in 2020, was terrible. And negative growth in 2020, thanks to Covid (well, more the response to Covid) -- though good growth at the start of the administration.

Spending during the Biden Administration, thanks largely to a misguided "America Rescue Plan Act and the Orwellian named Inflation Reduction Act, was terrible. And anemic growth hurt the other side of the equation....

At least the money Biden spent was far far far less valuable thanks to said inflation. So he wins for that, right?

I think they are both terrible on this score, but I don't think your numbers are right. One obvious number that's wrong is that Biden hasn't been in 4 years. The United States is currently adding a trillion to the deficit every (about) 100 days.

On January 20, 2017, when Barack Obama peacefully left office and Donald Trump was inaugurated, total public debt was 19.95 trillion. (all figures rounded to the nearest 10 billion).

On January 20, 2021, when Donald Trump peacefully left office and Joe Biden was inaugurated, the total public debt was 27.75 trillion.

This is an increase of 7.8 trillion.

Today, the total public debt is 35.68 trillion.

That is an increase of 7.93 trillion.

Biden (or at least a body double ) will be in office a little over 3 and a half months. In the past a little over three and a half months (using June 14, 2024), 1 trillion dollars was added to the deficit. It is reasonable to project Biden's total add to the deficit will be 9 trillion when "his" administration is out of office.

A pox on them both for this -- and Congress too.

But let's not spread disinformation on the internet, 5th. The censors might see.

Oh, and my source? The US Treasury Department. https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/dataset ... -the-penny

[rats19]

Also this

The blame game on federal debt is not clear cut.

Much of the current federal debt stems from mandatory payments, such as those for Social Security and Medicare. These began spiking when the baby boom generation started drawing heavily from these programs around 2010. Not coincidentally, that’s when the federal debt began accelerating.

Generations of politicians in both parties approved and modified these programs long before Trump took office.

"It is always challenging to figure out how much spending was on whose watch," said Steve Ellis, president of the federal budget-watching nonprofit group Taxpayers for Common Sense.

The biggest single spikes in the federal debt came from the initial rounds of coronavirus relief legislation in 2020. Trump signed them, but they passed with broad bipartisan support.

"Everyone, including me, said it was worth it, and without it, things would have been worse," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the center-right American Action Forum. "So, (it’s) not fair to blame Trump exclusively for something everyone thought was needed."

[UWSaint]

Also this

The blame game on federal debt is not clear cut.

Much of the current federal debt stems from mandatory payments, such as those for Social Security and Medicare. These began spiking when the baby boom generation started drawing heavily from these programs around 2010. Not coincidentally, that’s when the federal debt began accelerating.

Generations of politicians in both parties approved and modified these programs long before Trump took office.

"It is always challenging to figure out how much spending was on whose watch," said Steve Ellis, president of the federal budget-watching nonprofit group Taxpayers for Common Sense.

The biggest single spikes in the federal debt came from the initial rounds of coronavirus relief legislation in 2020. Trump signed them, but they passed with broad bipartisan support.

"Everyone, including me, said it was worth it, and without it, things would have been worse," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the center-right American Action Forum. "So, (it’s) not fair to blame Trump exclusively for something everyone thought was needed."

It is true that this entitlement spending is driving a good deal of this -- its a structural problem that was baked in and will be gets exacerbated further by lower birth rates. Gen X might be smaller in numbers than the baby boomers were, but the millennials aren't even replacing themselves. I mean, there's a fair policy solution here. You can have social security, or you can have abortion, but you can't have both.

I don't give them a total pass for not addressing this, but the last time it was seriously tried (2005, after the GWBush reelect), it failed miserably and is absolutely the third rail. Its almost unspeakable to discuss social security reform; it is so very unpopular. Not only does the general public believe in unicorns when it comes to this program, a politician who merely points out that they are believing in unicorns will have a hard time getting elected. I think there's a huge amount of abuse in the disability part of the program that probably wouldn't be third rail to crack down on, but its ultimately a "pennies" issue -- and if it might just push the fiscal aspect of the problem to another government program.

Other entitlement programs are also an increasing problem. Changes in health care policy during the Obama administration moved tons and tons more people into state medicaid programs (which have federal aid). So more entitlement spending there. All the good work that the 1990s Republicans and President Clinton compromised on to reform welfare/unemployment more or less disappeared with American Reinvestment Act era reforms of 2009 and an unwillingness to undo what was began as temporary. (Never let a crisis go to waste stuff).

The big ticket discretionary spending of recent years -- Trump's Covid spending, Biden's Covid/American Rescue Plan, Biden's "Inflation Reduction Act," and immense amount of $$ to blow people up in wars (the most recent of which we aren't even on the ground fighting) -- it is mostly dubious policy.

But as bad as a lot of the spending was for Covid, worse was the intentional shut down of the economy. Much of this happened at the state level (and Trump didn't object, and his agencies were recommending it), with all Democrat run states and most Republican run states imposing draconian measures in an obviously knowable at the time futile effort to stop the spread of Covid. Then, when that spring of 2020 passed and summer came, things opened up again. There was a good recovery when things opened up -- but when you drop 30% (or whatever) in a quarter, when you go 10% up from the new baseline you are still 23% down overall. But there were periodic shut downs again in the late Trump administration and in Biden's 2021, and Biden's policies did all sorts of new havoc on the economy. Landlords can't charge rent. The federal government can't collect student loan payments. Etc. All while the worst of the pandemic was passed.

That both parties passed the covid relief doesn't excuse the Republicans. The facts are neither party cares much about the next generation and the debts they are leaving and the be-like-Europe structural issues that will invariably lead to either collapse or endless "quantitative easing" that will likely make Gen Y and their successor generations poorer when they are 40 (in terms of buying power) than the Gen Xers and boomers on the board were when we were 40.

It is true that the initial Covid spending had the biggest hit on the deficit. And its true that *if* there were a time to spend, that was it. If people are forced out of work, what will they do? It had a double effect on the deficit because productivity stopped. So less coming in, more going out. The Biden era spending, in my view, was more dubious in terms of public policy justification, but it had slightly less effect on the deficit than the first round because receipts were better because the economy wasn't shut down. But it ended up being a major contributor to the inflation that followed, so while it didn't affect the deficit as much, it made us all immediately poorer. Inflation is the greatest regressive tax there could be, especially when the pricing effect were so concentrated in core commodities like food and energy.

Bottom line, without some reform of entitlements and/or significant growth, the trends are bad. But the 2020 to the present discretionary spending has been nuts, and it accelerates the trends immensely.

[5thhorseman]

Thanks for that UW, yeah I didn't go to the Treasury website , just let AI put together the figures for me, but in my (or the AIs) defense, they weren't that far off. Anyways, my main point really was that this view that Republicans are spendthrift and Democrats are spenders isn't that accurate. Both have added their share to the debt. If anything, the Dems do it via spending while the Republicans do it via tax cuts.

[UWSaint]

Thanks for that UW, yeah I didn't go to the Treasury website , just let AI put together the figures for me, but in my (or the AIs) defense, they weren't that far off. Anyways, my main point really was that this view that Republicans are spendthrift and Democrats are spenders isn't that accurate. Both have added their share to the debt. If anything, the Dems do it via spending while the Republicans do it via tax cuts.

Republicans aren't spendthrifts, though the spendthrifts who support a major party typically choose republicans because bad is better than worse. And with Republicans, its all just a little bit less new spending (usually); and if their tax cuts that don't have corresponding growth payoffs, the deficit suffers nearly the same.

If $398 billion off (Trump) and $1.28 trillion off (Biden) is close, then we've bought into the idea that $400 billion here, $750 there doesn't really matter.

But more interesting is how off AI is. Its the great machine learning problem. Junk in, junk out. It isn't even at the trust but verify level yet.

[Strangelove]

Biden (or at least a body double ) will be in office a little over 3 and a half months.

[Topper]

Biden (or at least a body double ) will be in office a little over 3 and a half months.

Something, I've read, an idea being tossed about, if Kamala wins, Biden resigns for Kamala to take office before January.

Would her time up to January be considered 1 term and then January onward, her second term?

[Strangelove]

Something, I've read, an idea being tossed about, if Kamala wins, Biden resigns for Kamala to take office before January.

Would her time up to January be considered 1 term and then January onward, her second term?

Well Lyndon B. Johnson replaced JFK mid-term, then won in 1964, then could have run in 1968

... but he chose not to run.

So I'd say IF Kamaltoe wins... she would be allowed to run again in 2028.

However, IF Kamaltoe wins... there will be no 2018 cuz...

[Topper]

Something, I've read, an idea being tossed about, if Kamala wins, Biden resigns for Kamala to take office before January.

Would her time up to January be considered 1 term and then January onward, her second term?

Well Lyndon B. Johnson replaced JFK mid-term, then won in 1964, then could have run in 1968

... but he chose not to run.

So I'd say IF Kamaltoe wins... she would be allowed to run again in 2028.

However, IF Kamaltoe wins... there will be no 2018 cuz...

Devolution or outpacing the speed of light?

LBJ's name came up the other day in a discussion stolen elections, referencing his work delivering Texas for JFK.

[Strangelove]

Devolution or outpacing the speed of light?

Iran would have billion$ spend billions on producing a new weapon of mass destruction.

LBJ's name came up the other day in a discussion stolen elections, referencing his work delivering Texas for JFK.

I have always felt LBJ was an evil SOB, but that's more of a vibe than anything else...

[Topper]

Devolution or outpacing the speed of light?

Iran would have billion$ spend billions on producing a new weapon of mass destruction.

LBJ's name came up the other day in a discussion stolen elections, referencing his work delivering Texas for JFK.

I have always felt LBJ was an evil SOB, but that's more of a vibe than anything else...

[Chef Boi RD]

You can’t get any more American than the Boss. He is America. Let’s rejoice in the Bosses Gospel of America. Important reading below.

Springsteen endorses Kamala Harris

https://www.instagram.com/p/DAsgE4UN9Bc ... hjODR1Y2J6

Bruce Springsteen has officially thrown his support behind Kamala Harris, endorsing her for president and simultaneously opposing Donald Trump, calling him “the most dangerous candidate for president in my lifetime”.

The Born to Run singer made the announcement in a video posted to his Instagram on Thursday evening (US time) in which he described the upcoming election as “one of the most consequential elections in our nation’s history”.

“Perhaps not since the Civil War has this great country felt as politically, spiritually and emotionally divided as it does at this moment. It doesn’t have to be this way.”

Springsteen, who was a vocal supporter of Barack Obama and Joe Biden in their respective presidential campaigns, is the latest high-profile endorsement for Harris, joining Taylor Swift, Oprah Winfrey and Barbra Streisand.

In the video, he praised Harris and Walz’s commitment to “a vision of this country that respects and includes everyone, regardless of class, religion, race, your political point of view or sexual identity, and they want to grow our economy in a way that benefits all, not just a few like me on top”.

“That’s the vision of America I’ve been consistently writing about for 55 years.”

Trump, by contrast, “doesn’t understand the meaning of this country, its history or what it means to be deeply American”, the singer said.

“His disdain for the sanctity of our constitution, the sanctity of democracy, the sanctity of the rule of law and the sanctity of the peaceful transfer of power should disqualify him from the office of president ever again.”

Concluding, Springsteen said: “Now, everybody sees things different, and I respect your choice as a fellow citizen. But like you, I’ve only got one vote, and it’s one of the most precious possessions that I have. That’s why come November 5 I’ll be casting my vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. Thanks for listening.”

[5thhorseman]

Sorry Dude , but I'm pretty sure nobody on this board is swayed by a celebrity endorsement.