The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 34,402
Total Cats: 7,523
From: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
When Biden was "elected", I was fearful. The middle class has been under the gun for a long time, and I thought it was the beginning of the end.
Since Trump has been in office, I see now how very screwed we are, and the more they dig, the worse things look. The politics game has always been shady, but the things I have been seeing and reading make me horrified. This corruption goes very deep and has been going on for a very long time. Spend a couple of hours on Reddit to see how brainwashed the young are, without the foundations of things like basic economics or history to balance it.
If I were a religious person, I'd be praying.
Since Trump has been in office, I see now how very screwed we are, and the more they dig, the worse things look. The politics game has always been shady, but the things I have been seeing and reading make me horrified. This corruption goes very deep and has been going on for a very long time. Spend a couple of hours on Reddit to see how brainwashed the young are, without the foundations of things like basic economics or history to balance it.
If I were a religious person, I'd be praying.
I don't devote nearly as much time to podcasts as I did when I commuted nearly everywhere on foot, but I still find time for Freakonomics.
On a recent episode, they featured the self-described "right of center" economist Jessica Riedel of The Manhattan Institute, whose claim to fame is being hated equally by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress. Here is that episode in full: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/ten...-s-tax-system/
The title of the episode, Ten Myths About the U.S. Tax System, takes its name from a paper with Riedel wrote in December, which you can read here: https://manhattan.institute/article/...p-10-tax-myths
In addition to de-dunking myths such as "the rich don't pay their fair share," "tax cuts lead to reduced spending," and "European countries have a far more progressive tax system than the US," a great deal of time in the Podcast is spent discussing a far more fundamental issue: the Federal Deficit.
Riedel has a great deal to say on the matter, and the episode is worth a listen, but here are some of the key bullet points:
1: No matter how bad you think the budget deficit situation is, it's worse than that.
2: The US has a massive spending problem. Between 1950 and 2020, the US population grew from 148 million to 337 million, an increase of 127%. During that same period, Federal revenue increased by 5,156%, and Federal spending increased by 7,903%.
3: Discretionary spending, which is what Congress passes a budget for each year and what DOGE is going after, is just a tiny part of the problem. Reducing that to zero would not fix things.
4: No one seems to acknowledge the scale of how big the problem is. Taxing every billionaire at 100%, also also seizing 100% of their wealth, would not put a dent in it.
5: There is no realistic model which predicts the US still having a functioning economy 30 years from now, under current deficit projections.
6: Politicians have no incentive to fix this.
1: No matter how bad you think the budget deficit situation is, it's worse than that.
2: The US has a massive spending problem. Between 1950 and 2020, the US population grew from 148 million to 337 million, an increase of 127%. During that same period, Federal revenue increased by 5,156%, and Federal spending increased by 7,903%.
3: Discretionary spending, which is what Congress passes a budget for each year and what DOGE is going after, is just a tiny part of the problem. Reducing that to zero would not fix things.
4: No one seems to acknowledge the scale of how big the problem is. Taxing every billionaire at 100%, also also seizing 100% of their wealth, would not put a dent in it.
5: There is no realistic model which predicts the US still having a functioning economy 30 years from now, under current deficit projections.
6: Politicians have no incentive to fix this.
Reply
0
0
All-round "Good Guy"
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,036
Total Cats: 266
From: Brisbane, AUSTRALIA
... so kid, you're hypothesizing that Elon Musk is actually responsible for the recent Tesla vandalisms/arson around the world - given the reduction in worldwide sales, sounds legit!
Shouldn't that be "the less-murdery part."?
You have provided a really excellent example here of why it's important to read beyond the headline.
:
At the upper-right, that's Wrigley Field, home of the Cubs. That's Chicago's north side, which in my profile I have indicated as "the less-murder part." I live just to the west of there, not quite to the I-90/94 freeway shown in orange. This is a nice neighborhood, with lots of trendy shops and no bars on the windows.
:
:
At the upper-right, that's Wrigley Field, home of the Cubs. That's Chicago's north side, which in my profile I have indicated as "the less-murder part." I live just to the west of there, not quite to the I-90/94 freeway shown in orange. This is a nice neighborhood, with lots of trendy shops and no bars on the windows.
:
Reply
0
0
This is not the first time I've seen someone make this argument. But I've never seen anyone explain how it might be possible.
The US Federal Debt is not a mortgage or a credit card account. The $29 trillion in external federal debt (excluding the $4 trillion in "debt" owed by one part of the Fed to another) exists mainly in the form of Treasury Bills, Treasury Bonds, and Treasury Notes.
These securities are pretty much all the same, differing mainly in the duration for which they are in effect. They all work similarly to a Bank Certificate of Deposit, where a person (or corporation, or investment firm, or foreign government) buys (as an example) a 10 year T-note with a coupon rate of 5% for $100, then at the end of 10 years they will have collected a total of $150; 5% of the principal annually non-compounded, plus the return of the original $100.
There is no way to "re-finance" that, because the note has a clearly defined maturity term. It's not like a mortgage or an auto loan, where you can pay it off early and skip out on all of the interest payments you would have had to make otherwise.
The Fed could obviously elect to not honor that term, but that would be a default, not a re-finance.
I'm open to explanations as to why I'm wrong, obviously.
In terms of real-world examples of that not being the case, the US Federal Funds rate (the "interest rate") was roughly zero from Dec 2008 through Dec 2015, and then again from March 2020 through March 2022.
I took advantage of that second period to purchase a house, signing 15 year mortgage at a fixed rate of 2.125%.
The treasury yield obviously dipped during those times, averaging between 2-3% on the 10 year T-note during the '08 recession and aftermath, and briefly dipping all the way to 0.7% in August of 2020 before quickly rebounding.
No outstanding treasury securities were "re-financed" during this period, because as I stated right at the beginning of this post, that simply isn't a real concept. And relatively few new bonds were issued, because nobody wants to make fixed-term investments in ultra-low-yield assets.
The US Federal Debt is not a mortgage or a credit card account. The $29 trillion in external federal debt (excluding the $4 trillion in "debt" owed by one part of the Fed to another) exists mainly in the form of Treasury Bills, Treasury Bonds, and Treasury Notes.
These securities are pretty much all the same, differing mainly in the duration for which they are in effect. They all work similarly to a Bank Certificate of Deposit, where a person (or corporation, or investment firm, or foreign government) buys (as an example) a 10 year T-note with a coupon rate of 5% for $100, then at the end of 10 years they will have collected a total of $150; 5% of the principal annually non-compounded, plus the return of the original $100.
There is no way to "re-finance" that, because the note has a clearly defined maturity term. It's not like a mortgage or an auto loan, where you can pay it off early and skip out on all of the interest payments you would have had to make otherwise.
The Fed could obviously elect to not honor that term, but that would be a default, not a re-finance.
I'm open to explanations as to why I'm wrong, obviously.
In terms of real-world examples of that not being the case, the US Federal Funds rate (the "interest rate") was roughly zero from Dec 2008 through Dec 2015, and then again from March 2020 through March 2022.
I took advantage of that second period to purchase a house, signing 15 year mortgage at a fixed rate of 2.125%.
The treasury yield obviously dipped during those times, averaging between 2-3% on the 10 year T-note during the '08 recession and aftermath, and briefly dipping all the way to 0.7% in August of 2020 before quickly rebounding.
No outstanding treasury securities were "re-financed" during this period, because as I stated right at the beginning of this post, that simply isn't a real concept. And relatively few new bonds were issued, because nobody wants to make fixed-term investments in ultra-low-yield assets.
In the short term, Trump slapping tariffs on the whole world takes a bat to the hornet's nest. Markets are shaken Investors end up fleeing the stocks and put their money into bonds. The bond yield drops as a result, and so does the overall interest rate. In a perfect scenario interest rates will plummet and DJT will refinance the debt at zero.
I think you're right--T notes are not "callable", even though my parents had some 10% T notes years ago that were paid off early. T-bills have short maturity so they don't get called either. My guess is that DJT will happily restructure the debt as it comes due.
The other benefit of the low interest is low mortgage rates, lower cost of goods, lower credit card rates, and generally a boost to the economy.
In the long term, those countries that drop their tariffs to zero become a potential market for U.S. goods, and also lower our retail goods costs. Those companies that want to avoid tariffs altogether will open manufacturing here. And if tariffs become a major source of income, DJT has said his goal is to remove the income tax.
I think that voluntary taxes are always preferable to involuntary. Purchased goods taxed rather than income taxed, just because it removes some of the adversarial relationship we have with the government.
Last edited by cordycord; Apr 6, 2025 at 11:47 PM.
Reply
0
0
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 80,552
Total Cats: 4,368
From: Chantilly, VA
https://thefederalist.com/2025/04/07...ill-in-office/
[...] The plan was a seven-step process. Get identification information from people living out of town, then use their ID to change their voter registration address to Millbourne using Pennsylvania’s online portal for voter registration.
Next, electronically request mail-in ballots and have the ballots sent to mailboxes the three cheaters could access.
Get the ballots from Millbourne mailboxes; fill out the ballot voting for Hasan as mayor; then stuff the ballot into the envelope and write the “voter’s” name on the envelope as the official signature. The final step was to submit the bogus ballots at the Delaware County Board of Elections.
This signature step forces a fraudster to forge someone’s name. Democrats have been trying to get the state to drop the envelope signature requirement, which would make it easier to cheat.
They also prefer unmanned drop boxes where cheaters could bring more than one ballot, undetected.
[...]
3 Pennsylvania Officials Plead Guilty To Election Fraud – And 2 Are Still In Office
[...] The plan was a seven-step process. Get identification information from people living out of town, then use their ID to change their voter registration address to Millbourne using Pennsylvania’s online portal for voter registration.
Next, electronically request mail-in ballots and have the ballots sent to mailboxes the three cheaters could access.
Get the ballots from Millbourne mailboxes; fill out the ballot voting for Hasan as mayor; then stuff the ballot into the envelope and write the “voter’s” name on the envelope as the official signature. The final step was to submit the bogus ballots at the Delaware County Board of Elections.
This signature step forces a fraudster to forge someone’s name. Democrats have been trying to get the state to drop the envelope signature requirement, which would make it easier to cheat.
They also prefer unmanned drop boxes where cheaters could bring more than one ballot, undetected.
[...]
Reply
0
0
There's a certain delicious irony when a poster named "Catturd" is able to wipe Robert Reich's face in his litterbox.
So far well over 50 countries are coming to the table, and MANY are asking for 0% reciprocal tariffs, such as VietNam, Taiwan, Argentina, and now (apparently) even the EU wants to come to the table to discuss 0% tariffs.
As mentioned, the Biden administration left Trump with an over $9 TRILLION debt bomb. If you see a few days of market frenzy, just remember the words of shorty-short small guy Robert Reich, above. This will only end up helping regular Americans.
Reply
0
0
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 34,402
Total Cats: 7,523
From: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
2: How does the debt left behind by the Biden administration differ from the debts left behind by other administrations?
I downloaded a table of the US total national debt year by year, and pasted it into an Excel sheet. It was then easy to subtract one year from the preceding, to show the amount by which the debt increased each year. I then grouped these together into four year clusters, corresponding to each presidential administration for the past 30 years, and added those clusters together. For simplicity, I assumed that each Presidential term begins on Jan 1, rather than Jan 20.
We now have an easy way of comparing one administration to the next.
Here is the amount by which the US National Debt increased during each presidential term:
• $1.16 Trillion during Clinton's first term
• $0.45 Trillion during Clinton's second term
• $1.71 Trillion during G.W. Bush's first term
• $2.65 Trillion during G.W. Bush's second term
• $6.04 Trillion during Obama's first term
• $3.51 Trillion during Obama's second term
• $7.37 Trillion during Trump's first term
• $8.52 Trillion during Biden's only term
No real surprises here. The last year in which the debt did not increase was 1957. But it's the acceleration in the rate of change which is concerning.• $1.16 Trillion during Clinton's first term
• $0.45 Trillion during Clinton's second term
• $1.71 Trillion during G.W. Bush's first term
• $2.65 Trillion during G.W. Bush's second term
• $6.04 Trillion during Obama's first term
• $3.51 Trillion during Obama's second term
• $7.37 Trillion during Trump's first term
• $8.52 Trillion during Biden's only term
The general trend has been for the debt to increase by a greater amount (both in absolute dollars and as a percent of GDP) during each Presidential term than the last, with the exceptions of the second terms of Clinton and Obama under-spending their own first term, though still increasing the total debt by a greater amount than their predecessor.
The debt increased more under Bush than it did under Clinton, more under Obama than under Bush, more under Trump than under Obama, and more under Biden than under Trump.
So, what's different this time?
Reply
2
2
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 34,402
Total Cats: 7,523
From: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
The interest on the US National Debt exceeded $1 Trillion for the first time last year. That is more than the total amount of the entire Federal budget deficit for any year prior to 2009, full-stop.
That is how badly we are fucked.
I know that I'm right. This is why I'm using concrete examples and real numbers, rather than saying "My guess is that..."
However, the reason I was able to do that was because the economy was tanking at the time. Inflation was through the roof, unemployment was nearing record levels, and you yourself, as a small business owner, were, as you have previously explained to me, teetering on the verge of bankruptcy during this time. I was simply fortunate to be in the right place at the right time, with substantial cash reserves and a relatively secure corporate job.
That is not a sustainable way to run an economy for most people.
Reply
1
1
This is the most important metric I have seen anywhere.
Reply
1
1
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 80,552
Total Cats: 4,368
From: Chantilly, VA
Imagine sending your kid to a $70K/yr community college:
https://jonathanturley.org/2025/04/0...c-math-course/
According to The Harvard Crimson, Harvard will offer high-school-level math courses to its students. The remedial assistance has rekindled criticism over Harvard’s move away from standardized tests in making admissions decisions.
For years, Harvard has been accused of lowering admissions standards to achieve “equity” goals in its classes. The school opposed efforts to uncover its admissions data. When that data was ultimately revealed, sharp differences emerged based on race. The differences led to the historic decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023) barring the use of race in college admissions.
Sure, it might just be a $70K/yr community college now, but think about how much diversity equity and inclusion they have now.
https://jonathanturley.org/2025/04/0...c-math-course/
Crimson Slide: Harvard Students Offered High School Basic Math Course
According to The Harvard Crimson, Harvard will offer high-school-level math courses to its students. The remedial assistance has rekindled criticism over Harvard’s move away from standardized tests in making admissions decisions.
For years, Harvard has been accused of lowering admissions standards to achieve “equity” goals in its classes. The school opposed efforts to uncover its admissions data. When that data was ultimately revealed, sharp differences emerged based on race. The differences led to the historic decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023) barring the use of race in college admissions.
Reply
0
0
Elite Member
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,604
Total Cats: 248
From: Canberra, sort of
The US has a massive spending problem. Between 1950 and 2020, the US population grew from 148 million to 337 million, an increase of 127%. During that same period, Federal revenue increased by 5,156%, and Federal spending increased by 7,903%.
This is the most important metric I have seen anywhere.
This is the most important metric I have seen anywhere.
However you may be hinting that USG financial instruments may not be considered prime into the future, and their saleability may be diminished? Can't think why, but the future is uncertain now in ways that are probably unprecedented ...
Reply
0
0
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 34,402
Total Cats: 7,523
From: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Sure thing.
In 1950, US GDP per capita was $1,977.
In 2020, US GDP per capita was $64,351.
During the period in which US Federal spending increased by 7,903%, US GDP per capita rose by only 3,155%.
Spending grew at more than double the rate of increase in GDP.
Source for data: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A939RC0A052NBEA
Reply
1
1
Sure thing.
In 1950, US GDP per capita was $1,977.
In 2020, US GDP per capita was $64,351.
During the period in which US Federal spending increased by 7,903%, US GDP per capita rose by only 3,155%.
Spending grew at more than double the rate of increase in GDP.
Source for data: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A939RC0A052NBEA
In 1950, US GDP per capita was $1,977.
In 2020, US GDP per capita was $64,351.
During the period in which US Federal spending increased by 7,903%, US GDP per capita rose by only 3,155%.
Spending grew at more than double the rate of increase in GDP.
Source for data: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A939RC0A052NBEA
As for "debt bomb", the Fed needs to refinance about $9 Trillion (with a T) in bonds this year. That's a lot, and you can see that just from your own list. We were told that flooding the market with money was required during the pandemic, and now we're paying for it. If other countries (like China) don't buy our bonds, the prices go up. That's not good. If people run to bonds while the stock market gets bruised, that's a softer landing....perhaps even without the recession that many have been forecasting.
Reply
0
0
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 34,402
Total Cats: 7,523
From: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
1: Why does The Fed need to refinance $9 Trillion in bonds this year, as opposed to prior years in which it did not?
2: What is the mechanism by which The Fed will be able to "refinance" treasury securities, specifically?
Reply
0
0
