US continues to go backward...

[JTOSU]

Someone please tell me how we can sustain the fiscal irresponsibility of the Trump/Biden/Trump era? 'Splain it to me.

We can’t sustain.

* Spending is power and politicians love it.
* Most Americans don’t care about the debt…it doesn’t affect them so politicians can continue spending without much repercussion.
* Stopping spending is apparently impossible. Things that should be agreeable to both parties to cease spending just getting keep getting approved to spend…because that is how they deal. Current spending is always sacrosanct for someone.
Example: With the ease and extremely low-cost of media for anyone to produce, publish, broadcast, and distribute content….there should be zero need of public funds utilized for radio or TV.

 

[Verbal]

Looks like it started during the Reagan era. What's up with that?

Are you implying that Trickle Down Economics didn't work? I'm shocked.

 

[cowboyinexile]

Are you implying that Trickle Down Economics didn't work? I'm shocked.

Im not implying anything, at least not directly. Im just asking. Reagan is supposed to represent old school Republicans who are all about fiscal responsibility. So how come the federal deficit ballooned during his presidency?

 

[Verbal]

Im not implying anything, at least not directly. Im just asking. Reagan is supposed to represent old school Republicans who are all about fiscal responsibility. So how come the federal deficit ballooned during his presidency?

Simple answer IMO is Republicans never were about being fiscally responsible and only "cared" about it when Dems are in office and some of the money might go to help the lower class.

 

[cowboyinexile]

Simple answer IMO is Republicans never were about being fiscally responsible and only "cared" about it when Dems are in office and some of the money might go to help the lower class.

Ok.

We always talk about actions now making things tougher for future generations. Does anyone stop to think when this was first brought up 40 years ago we are the future generation being talked about?

 

[RxCowboy]

We can’t sustain.

* Spending is power and politicians love it.
* Most Americans don’t care about the debt…it doesn’t affect them so politicians can continue spending without much repercussion.
* Stopping spending is apparently impossible. Things that should be agreeable to both parties to cease spending just getting keep getting approved to spend…because that is how they deal. Current spending is always sacrosanct for someone.
Example: With the ease and extremely low-cost of media for anyone to produce, publish, broadcast, and distribute content….there should be zero need of public funds utilized for radio or TV.

Solipsism... they don't see the effects immediately... it's like turning the water up slowly on a pot of live lobsters. The lobsters don't notice the increase in heat until it's too late.

 

[Bowers3]

Oh. Good......

Supreme Court to hear Vance, GOP effort to strike down campaign finance provision

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to take up Vice President Vance and GOP committees’ bid to strike down federal limits on political parties’ spending made in coordination with campaigns.

• The Supreme Court announced on Monday, June 30, 2025, that it will review a Republican-led effort to remove limits on party spending in federal elections.
• In 2022, Republican House and Senate committees, supported by the Trump administration, initiated a lawsuit in Ohio contesting a long-established federal election statute.
• For Senate campaigns, the legal limits on party-coordinated expenditures range from $127,200 in less populous states to almost $4 million in California, while House campaigns face spending caps between $63,600 and $127,200 depending on the state's number of representatives.
• Election law specialist Richard Hasen has forecasted on the Election Law blog that the court is likely to invalidate the restrictions, arguing that given the widespread influence of super PACs—which have weakened political parties while failing to reduce corruption and inequality, and may have actually exacerbated them—such a decision could be justified.
• If the court removes the spending caps, large donors could circumvent individual contribution limits by directing unlimited sums through parties to directly support candidates.

 

[RxCowboy]

Are you implying that Trickle Down Economics didn't work? I'm shocked.

There's no such thing as "trickle down economics". That's a strawman. There are two opposing schools of economics, Keynesian and supply-side. When you look at the massive red under Obama/Trump/Biden you are seeing Keynesianism.

When Reagan took office in 1981 inflation was over 13% and unemployment was 10% and we were in a recession. High interest rates where about to spur the savings and loan collapse in the 80s. We were in a recession.

By the end of the Reagan administration inflation was 4.1%, unemployment was 5.4% and the economy improved for 74 out of Reagan's 96 months in office. The economic growth that produced the budget surplus during the Clinton years began under Reagan and Clinton was smart enough not to screw it up. He was helped by a Republican House and the Contract with America. Supply side economics worked. Our current Keynesian blow out is selling us down the river.

“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low — and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.”
— John F. Kennedy, Dec. 14, 1962

Kinda sounds trickle downish to me.

 

[RxCowboy]

Oh. Good......

Supreme Court to hear Vance, GOP effort to strike down campaign finance provision

• The Supreme Court announced on Monday, June 30, 2025, that it will review a Republican-led effort to remove limits on party spending in federal elections.
• In 2022, Republican House and Senate committees, supported by the Trump administration, initiated a lawsuit in Ohio contesting a long-established federal election statute.
• For Senate campaigns, the legal limits on party-coordinated expenditures range from $127,200 in less populous states to almost $4 million in California, while House campaigns face spending caps between $63,600 and $127,200 depending on the state's number of representatives.
• Election law specialist Richard Hasen has forecasted on the Election Law blog that the court is likely to invalidate the restrictions, arguing that given the widespread influence of super PACs—which have weakened political parties while failing to reduce corruption and inequality, and may have actually exacerbated them—such a decision could be justified.
• If the court removes the spending caps, large donors could circumvent individual contribution limits by directing unlimited sums through parties to directly support candidates.

 

[Bowers3]

That will put into hyperdrive the notion that the ruling class only represents the corporate class. The People have no representation anymore.

 

[milehighpoke]

We can’t sustain.

* Spending is power and politicians love it.
* Most Americans don’t care about the debt…it doesn’t affect them so politicians can continue spending without much repercussion.
* Stopping spending is apparently impossible. Things that should be agreeable to both parties to cease spending just getting keep getting approved to spend…because that is how they deal. Current spending is always sacrosanct for someone.
Example: With the ease and extremely low-cost of media for anyone to produce, publish, broadcast, and distribute content….there should be zero need of public funds utilized for radio or TV.

Did you know, and this is true, that public broadcasting is .01% of the federal budget? What an absolutely asinine thing to rally against. I'm sure when Fox becomes federally funded you won't have a problem with that at all.

I truly believe that both sides are concerned about spending. It's what we want to cut that is wildly different. You want to do away with SNAP, Medicaid, USAID, and Sesame Street. I want to cut back insanely bloated military funding (like paying $300 for a roll of TP), tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, private contracts with no oversight for people like Musk, civilian surveillance systems from Palantir, etc. etc. I want LESS government overreach into our personal lives, and more help for citizens.

You know what one of the best things I learned at OSU (and in my fraternity) was? Leave it better than it was when you came in. Don't pull the ladder up behind you. And if you have privilege (whether it's earned or not), ALWAYS use it to help the less fortunate.

 

[milehighpoke]

I know he is a comedian, but what he is pointing out is extremely dangerous. We must stop our politicians from outright lying to the people like this.

2 Mio. Aufrufe · 86.735 Reaktionen | Jon Stewart to the Media: Do Your Job | Jon Stewart wants the media to stop the wild speculation and behave more like the courts: study the evidence and present a conclusion. | By The Daily Show | Facebook

Jon Stewart wants the media to stop the wild speculation and behave more like the courts: study the evidence and present a conclusion.

www.facebook.com

I agree with him, but it won't matter if "traditional" media gets better. Trump can lie all he wants because Fox, OAN, and Newsmaxx won't cover it that way. MAGA has their own personal misinformation arm. That's why we are where we are. Magats don't want to think for themselves or hear contrarian beliefs. They want to be told what to think, and who to blame.

 

[GratefulPoke]

There's no such thing as "trickle down economics". That's a strawman. There are two opposing schools of economics, Keynesian and supply-side. When you look at the massive red under Obama/Trump/Biden you are seeing Keynesianism.

When Reagan took office in 1981 inflation was over 13% and unemployment was 10% and we were in a recession. High interest rates where about to spur the savings and loan collapse in the 80s. We were in a recession.

By the end of the Reagan administration inflation was 4.1%, unemployment was 5.4% and the economy improved for 74 out of Reagan's 96 months in office. The economic growth that produced the budget surplus during the Clinton years began under Reagan and Clinton was smart enough not to screw it up. He was helped by a Republican House and the Contract with America. Supply side economics worked. Our current Keynesian blow out is selling us down the river.

“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low — and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.”
— John F. Kennedy, Dec. 14, 1962

Kinda sounds trickle downish to me.

I disagree with this assessment. Supply side economics sold the working class down the river and the damage was not apparent until later on. Neither neoliberal approach has worked or is working, and many economic ailments are slow developing so the damage may not be apparent at all early on. But the middle class is being gutted, the working class is struggling and growing in number and percentage. If AI is even half as disruptive as it is surmised to be, this will be catastrophic to both groups.

Both systems grow income inequality astronomically and that plus the debt are the two biggest economic challenges we face today.

When 50-60% of the population struggles or is unable to make ends meet, that is an untenable situation. And it is no wonder why NYC just nominated a democratic socialist to be mayor in light of this. If these economic trends hold, Mamdani will be the first of many to come and there will be a large socialist movement in the US.

 

[Bowers3]

I disagree with this assessment. Supply side economics sold the working class down the river and the damage was not apparent until later on. Neither neoliberal approach has worked or is working, and many economic ailments are slow developing so the damage may not be apparent at all early on. But the middle class is being gutted, the working class is struggling and growing in number and percentage. If AI is even half as disruptive as it is surmised to be, this will be catastrophic to both groups.

Both systems grow income inequality astronomically and that plus the debt are the two biggest economic challenges we face today.

When 50-60% of the population struggles or is unable to make ends meet, that is an untenable situation. And it is no wonder why NYC just nominated a democratic socialist to be mayor in light of this. If these economic trends hold, Mamdani will be the first of many to come and there will be a large socialist movement in the US.

Supply side only works with some demand side as well. Capitalism is very much preferable to socialism. But we've done it to ourselves. What we have now is crony state corporatism if I could put a word to it? I don't blame anyone for running to "socialism." We need an actual, sustainable capitalism.

 

[GratefulPoke]

Supply side only works with some demand side as well. Capitalism is very much preferable to socialism. But we've done it to ourselves. What we have now is crony state corporatism if I could put a word to it? I don't blame anyone for running to "socialism." We need an actual, sustainable capitalism.

I agree. Our current system also seems to individualize the benefits of success, but socialize the fallout of failure. I don't know if capitalism is sustainable without very strong regulation and wealth redistribution like the Scandinavian countries. We do seem to be past a threshold where a lot of not great things are happening and most industries are consolidating into monopolies/near monopolies. How do we get out of this mess?

Power and wealth is concentrated into the hands of the few and they can spend unlimited funds in elections and legally bribe elected officials. Unlike the robber barons of the late 1800s and early 1900s they don't even pretend to be charitable and give back to their communities, they just want to maximize their stack of cash.

There isn't any trust busting, congress is not even doing show hearings anymore to show they are concerned about the corruption. Even with very low unemployment, wages have seriously lagged behind inflation and workers have way less power than 20 or 30 years ago. There is no labor movement to hold anyone accountable and while the republicans have lost their mind and embraced authoritarianism, the democrats for the most part keep running stale out of touch people that just want their chance at making a few bags of cash while in office.

 

[RxCowboy]

I disagree with this assessment. Supply side economics sold the working class down the river and the damage was not apparent until later on. Neither neoliberal approach has worked or is working, and many economic ailments are slow developing so the damage may not be apparent at all early on. But the middle class is being gutted, the working class is struggling and growing in number and percentage. If AI is even half as disruptive as it is surmised to be, this will be catastrophic to both groups.

Both systems grow income inequality astronomically and that plus the debt are the two biggest economic challenges we face today.

When 50-60% of the population struggles or is unable to make ends meet, that is an untenable situation. And it is no wonder why NYC just nominated a democratic socialist to be mayor in light of this. If these economic trends hold, Mamdani will be the first of many to come and there will be a large socialist movement in the US.

And I disagree with your assessment. We have had nothing but Keynesianism since Clinton, government shoveling money out fast and furiously, and that is exactly when the economic gap has grown.

 

[RxCowboy]

Supply side only works with some demand side as well. Capitalism is very much preferable to socialism. But we've done it to ourselves. What we have now is crony state corporatism if I could put a word to it? I don't blame anyone for running to "socialism." We need an actual, sustainable capitalism.

Crony corporatism is a good word for it.

 

[GratefulPoke]

And I disagree with your assessment. We have had nothing but Keynesianism since Clinton, and that is exactly when the economic gap has grown.

No, this started ~1970 when two things happened:
1) We went off the Bretton-Woods monetary system.
2) Labor got weakened and membership as a result started to fall.

The Reagan years were the 2nd worst decade for the wage growth discrepancy in the last 35 years:

 

[Bowers3]

Crony corporatism is a good word for it.

I had to add the word state. Because I would consider an argument that we're actually closer to socialism than capitalism right now. Talk about centrally planned. What's more centrally planned than a government picking winners and losers of entire industries based on who donates the most?

 

[JTOSU]

Did you know, and this is true, that public broadcasting is .01% of the federal budget? What an absolutely asinine thing to rally against.

Thank you for proving a great example of how people argue against cutting anything. There are ALOT of programs that are under 1% of the total budget so people that don’t really care about continued excessive spending simply put their head in the sand, kick the can down the road and ignore it.