Boomergeddon Countdown: Ten Years… Nine…

by James A. Bacon

The last time the United States had a serious conversation about deficit spending and the accumulating national debt was in 2010 with the publication of the Simpson-Bowles study. (That’s about the same time I wrote Boomergeddon, predicting that the United States had 20 to 30 years before the fiscal wheels fell off the bus.) After the usual tut-tutting, and Republicans blaming Democrats, and Democrats blaming Republicans, nothing was done. Indeed, in the following era of artificially low interest rates that made deficit spending seem painless, Congress, successive presidents, and the media ignored the issue and deficits ballooned.

Now the national debt exceeds $34 trillion, the debt-to-GDP ratio exceeds 100%, the structural budget deficit is running between $1 trillion and $2 trillion annually, and it will be only a decade before the Social Security Trust fund runs out and sparks a fiscal/political crisis. Political polarization is even worse today than it was during the Obama presidency. Democrats and Republicans accuse one another of sabotaging democracy, and trust in our institutions has reached an all-time low. It’s as if the captain and the executive officer of the Titanic were fighting for control of the vessel, rolling on the deck trying to gouge each others’ eyes out, even as its prow dips below the icy waters.

Meanwhile, there is no cognizance in the political rhetoric here in Virginia of the fiscal perils to come. The Commonwealth is required by its state constitution to balance its budget, and the state has managed to retain its AAA bond rating, so we are not as wildly profligate as some other states. I suppose there will be some temporary comfort in the thought that we were not the first to plunge into ungovernable anarchy when the federal government fails. But that comfort likely won’t last long.

When fiscal collapse and/or hyper-inflation occur, responsibility for holding society together will fall to state and local governments. Virginians should start reining in spending now, bullet-proofing balance sheets, and identifying trouble spots not only in government finances but also in the multitude of quasi-governmental authorities we depend upon for government services. We should be preparing for the day, for instance, when the Metropolitan Washington Area Transit Authority (WMATA) goes bankrupt and the federal government has lost its capacity to continue subsidizing it.

I sound these gloomy notes because awareness of an impending fiscal cliff is back in the news, at least for the moment.

On last Sunday’s 60 Minutes Federal Reserve Board Chair Jerome Powell said the unthinkable: the nation’s fiscal policies are “unsustainable.”

SCOTT PELLEY: But is the national debt a danger to the economy in your review? You are this country’s central banker.

POWELL: So, it, I would say this. In the long run, the U.S. is on an unsustainable fiscal path. The U.S. federal government’s on an unsustainable fiscal path. And that just means that the debt is growing faster than the economy. So, it is unsustainable. I don’t think that’s at all controversial. And I think we know that we have to get back on a sustainable fiscal path. And I think you’re starting to hear now from people in the elected branches who can make that happen. It’s time that we got back to that focus.

I think the pandemic was a very special event, and it caused the government to really spend to ward off what looked like very severe downside risks. It’s probably time, or past time, to get back to an adult conversation among elected officials about getting the federal government back on a sustainable fiscal path.

PELLEY: I have the sense this worries you very much.

POWELL: Over the long run, of course it does. You know, we’re effectively — we’re borrowing from future generations. And every generation really should pay for the things that it, that it needs. It can cause the federal government to buy the things that it needs for it, but it really should pay for those things and not hand the bills to our children and grandchildren.

I think this is, again, not controversial. But it’s difficult from a political standpoint. It’s not our business, really. But I do think it’s pretty widely understood that it’s time for us to get back to putting a priority on fiscal sustainability. And sooner’s better than later.

PELLEY: Urgent?

POWELL: You could say that it was urgent, yes.

Then there’s this from Jamie Dimon, as Fox Business reports his words to the Bipartisan Policy Center:

Fed Chair Powell joins a number of critics of fiscal policy and the surging national debt, including JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon. Dimon, warned last month that the U.S. economy is headed for a “cliff” if something isn’t done to address the federal government’s excessive debt burden.

“We see the cliff. It’s about 10 years out, we’re going 60 miles an hour [toward it],” he said at a Bipartisan Policy Center panel. Dimon argued that U.S. lawmakers will need to alter the current path of spending and control the national debt or there could be “rebellion” among foreign owners of U.S. government bonds.

The fiscal cliff is ten years off (right on schedule, if you go back and read “Boomergeddon.”) The welfare state erected over the past century is heading for a massive fail. Just imagine the turmoil if the federal government, unable to borrow to cover its spending, had to cut programs overnight by $2 trillion or, alternatively, if it paid for spending by goosing the money supply, not just one or two years as it did post-Covid, but year after year after year.

The nation’s political leadership is so dysfunctional, the increase of compounding interest payments on the national debt is so relentless, and the time left to fix things is so limited that catastrophic fiscal failure is mathematically ordained. State government is the only thing that stands between anarchy and order. But even in Virginia, most are in denial.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

163 responses to “Boomergeddon Countdown: Ten Years… Nine…”

  1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    Remove the FICA cap…. problem solved…

    1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      The main problem with SS is very low birth rates, so we do not have as many people paying into SS anymore, so you need a huge increase in tax going to SS to keep current level of payout. Huge increase in Gov’t spending just that one area. FICA might fine tune part of the problem but it is not the full Monty. Need to deal with whole truth.

    2. That would certainly help – a lot.

    3. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      You really only have to remove the cap on just 12 guys.

    4. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      The main problem with SS is very low birth rates, so we do not have as many people paying into SS anymore, so you need a huge increase in tax going to SS to keep current level of payout. Huge increase in Gov’t spending just that one area. FICA might fine tune part of the problem but it is not the full Monty. Need to deal with whole truth.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        less people yes but the “fix” does not require any general revenues just FICA taxes and balancing life expectancy with payouts. Originall SS had something like 5-8 yrs between retirement and death.

        That’s the beauty of FICA/SS unlike the regular budget. It is self-regulating. It does not have deficits because if it has reduced taxes, it cuts benefits.

        We decide what we want to do on one side or the other as long as we “balance”.

        We currently exclude income spent on health care and IRAs from FICA. If we addressed both of them, it would fix SS for a long time.

        The people who pay for ACA insurance pay with post tax money which has been taxed for FICA. The people who pay for employer-provided health insurance do not pay FICA taxes on that money.

        1. DJRippert Avatar

          If you look up your benefits on the Social Security website, is it clearly indicated that benefits will drop by 23% on the day that the Trust Fund runs out?

          I’m sorry Larry – but taxing people for a retirement fund, promising explicit benefits (to the penny) and then not being able to meet the promised benefits is at least a form of insolvency.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            I said they would stabilize at 75%. It’s not a retirement fund at all, it’s an annuity. You can outlive what you contributed to it. If you become disabled it will provide benefits. If you die, your spouse and kids will get benefits. And it gets COLAs.
            You can’t find an annuity that good for the money , try it. You can’t buy a private sector annuity that does that.

            What annuity is going to guarantee COLAs? SS is entirely funded from FICA taxes AND it does what the politicians won’t do. It CUTS spending to maintain a balance with it’s revenues.

            The problem is not with SS, it’s with realities of living longer with fewer workers. SS did not and does not “guarantee” some minimum amt of benefits. It guarantees what it can provide with the funding it gets. It automatically trims spending
            to not exceed it’s revenues.

            If the US budget was run like SS, we’d not have a deficit. We’d got spending when revenues dipped and we don’t do that.

      2. Lefty665 Avatar

        No, that is really not the issue.

        The issue as I explained in response to your similar assertion above is that SS is only being collected on a little more than 80% of wages, not the 90% that was part of Greenspan’s fix in the 1980s.

        I won’t go through it all again here, please look at my prior response. The issue is not collecting FICA on the income of the rich at the same rates as on the rest of the country.

        If collected as designed FICA prepays future benefits for current workers and does not depend on inter-generational contributions to remain solvent. It was one of the few things Greenspan actually got right.

      3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        So keeping with JAB’s topic, Congress was able to reach an agreement to extend the life of SS in 1983. What has changed that will not allow that same type of agreement to be made now? There are many solutions available. It just takes the ability to force them through… aka lead…. As demonstrated this week with the immigration bill, unlikely with the current leaders… even when they can agree, they get overridden by the fringe elements… at least one side does…

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          SS is fairly easily fixed but politically, some prefer to have it twist in the wind and blather nonsense like it’s part of the deficit.

          1. DJRippert Avatar

            It’s not easily fixed. Either benefits are cut or a retirement fund is turned into a tax.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            It’s not a retirement fund. It’s an annuity. It will pay you no matter how long you live no matter how much you contributed.

            It works the same way other annuities work in that regard except SS provides a COLA and virtually no private annuities do without more upfront.

          3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Exactly…

          4. LarrytheG Avatar

            It’s actually quite easily fixed. People outlive the premise upon what the original SS was based on. You have to adjust
            SS on that basis. If we live longer, after retirement than 50 years ago where is the money to pay benefits. You run into the very same problem with private sector annuities and govt and private sector pensions.

        2. DJRippert Avatar

          The “fix” is to change a poorly run retirement fund into a simple tax.

          Just another wealth transfer scheme.

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            There are only two sides to this equation – income or expenses. Why should the rich be preferentially exempted from the responsibility to keep social security whole? Sometimes they are more akin to locusts…. But, as usual, the Right points to problems with government programs that they have intentionally let worsen to the country’s detriment, scuttles any attempts (or even suggestions) to improve or correct the situation, and brings no alternatives to the table. It has happened time and time again… healthcare, social security, immigration… you name it… the Right’s goal is to burn the whole thing down (which is exactly why Trump is their Messiah – he is destruction personified in their eyes) … always has been, going back to before the Civil War.. same Conservatives doing the same thing over and over while the rest of the country suffers and tries to hold things together.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            The essential point of SS, is to require people to set aside money for their retirement rather than not and then having other taxpayers pay for their retirement as an entitlement.

            Before SS, 30-40% of seniors who retired were in poverty and required help from other taxpayers, i.e. entitlements.

            SS actually benefits the budget by enforcing setting aside money for retirement – and it works like many pensions in that it is an annuity, which means it pays until you die no matter how much you put into it. It balances out between those who outlived their contributions and those who died before getting all their contributions back.

            Virtually all annuities – govt and private sector work this way.

            SS actually reduces outlays in the budget for entitlements for seniors.

            SS, tried to do that with hospitalization also but did not address non-hospital providers which is what Medicare Part B does and is heavily subsidized in the regular budget to the tune of more than 600 billion dollars in the 3.5 trillion budget. It’s a significant portion of the deficit.

    5. Teddy007 Avatar

      NOt really. It helps but does not solve the problem. And the rich would just move their income into revenue streams that do not pay FICA taxes. Think carried interest.

  2. Lately I’ve been investing in precious metals.

    1. In Boomergeddon, the only precious metal is lead.

      1. Teddy007 Avatar

        If society falls apart, one should be invested in shot guns and canned food. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsMc-IswG3w

      2. …and brass.

        I have a fair amount of both.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          In 24 hours, I can be 125 miles offshore and going east.

          1. Yeah, but to where?

            I think it would be my destiny to stay and fight — whatever it is that needs to be fought…

            I’d probably die but I bet it’d be interesting…

            😎

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            not if you die at the hands of a left wing zealot, no?
            😉

          3. What makes you think I would not consider that interesting?

          4. LarrytheG Avatar

            oh something tells me it may be more than just “interesting” especially if they used a “constitutionally” obtained assault rifle but they were looney tunes all the way… more than “interesting”? 😉

          5. I don’t know what delusional point you are trying to make with that comment, but I’ll bet it’s once again based on your ignorance of what makes me tick.

          6. LarrytheG Avatar

            probably. undoubtedly. And goes in reverse also.

          7. DJRippert Avatar

            As long as he kills 20+ left wing zealots before he dies we will build a funeral pyre on a boat, float it out into the water and wish our brave warrior God’s speed to Vallhalla.

          8. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Nowhere. Everywhere. Pull a Jim Gray.

            That’d be a shame. Armageddon without you would be humorless.

          9. Hey, if you’re offering to take me with you I might change my mind. 😎

          10. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            No guns other than the Mossberg Mariner… and the flare, of course.

          11. Not even the WWII vintage 1911 .45 ACP?

          12. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Everything goes overboard 100 miles from Lisbon, which brings a funny story to mind.

            Some time back, a man sailed from New England (RI?) to Scotland. On his stern rail was mounted a $1200 brass signal gun. Everything went swimmingly until the customs fellow asked, “If you put a shotgun shell in it, will it fire?” “Oh absolutely, but you use black powder blanks.” Confiscated. He was told that if he shipped it home, he could get it back. He sailed home figuring he’d just handle from there.

            First delay: he had to request the forms, wait for them, fill them out, send shipping fee, wait.

            First problem. Guns can only be shipped to a US federally registered dealer. So he found a local dealer who would fill out the US forms for a fee. Had the address changed to the dealership’s. Waited so more.

            Second problem: He described the signal gun on the Scottish paperwork as “Brass 10-gauge signal gun”. In Scotland, a 10-gauge is a “cannon”. This made it “military artillery”, which required a Scottish magistrate to transfer the gun from Customs to the Army, then have the Army ship to the US. More forms, more delays.

            Third problem: local gun dealer wasn’t authorized to receive shipments from a foreign military. Had to apply for a change to his license, $$$. More forms, more delay.

            In the end, total cost $1000 and 1 year.

          13. So I’ll be okay as long as we don’t visit Scotland or stray within a 100 miles of Lisbon?

          14. DJRippert Avatar

            125 miles in 24 hours? Are you in a canoe?

          15. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Yes. Save the diesel for the harbors.

  3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “The nation’s political leadership is so dysfunctional…”

    And what happens when the political leadership actually works together and reaches a consensus on how to improve a supposed crisis (this time at the border)? The radicals that the Republicans have ceded control of their party to scuttle the deal from inside their tent in order to perpetuate what they think is a campaign issue for their leader. Boy, I bet that really irks BR contributors… any day now they might actually say something…

    1. I have not had time yet to thoroughly study the bill, but based on my first look, I think the border security section contains more outs than a nine-game world series.

      It provides authority for the federal government to do some things, but it requires them to do very little.

      I hope it passes, but I think it is mostly a bunch of silly word games that will result in little improvement at our southern border.

      At least they’ll be able to spend a lot more money that we don’t have, and that is the name of the game after all.

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Eric, when referring to Trump, Leader had a capital L. As I recall, one of his complaints about Haley is she admits programs like Social Security are unsustainable. I still don’t know enough about the immigration proposal to have a firm opinion, but 5K per day (1.8M per year) doesn’t sound like much restaint on asylum claims.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        SS is sustainable forever at about 75% payout in benefits. It has ZERO to do with the main US budget because it’s funded from FICA which is a dedicated tax. Not a penny of general revenues pays for SS.

        1. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          Medicare not so much. That is where the lives of comfortable seniors could suddenly become very problematic. And Medicaid has zero payroll taxes behind it.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            Medicare part A is FICA. Part B is not and is heavily subsidized. THe govt pays 75% of the premium. Medicaid
            actually is means-tested. But for those over 65, most could not even find coverage from the private sector and
            those that could would pay thousands a month. You and I did not pay a penny into Medicare Part B. It’s totally
            taxpayer funded and the premiums are bargain basement , far , far lower than what most employed people
            pay for health insurance. Medicare Advantage puts more of the cost on the insured not on the premium side but
            on the spending side in terms of coverage and out of pocket. “Comfortable” seniors should not be socking money away in investments that you did not have to pay for Medicare. Fair share, means-tested. If we don’t , then don’t complain about the defcit/debt, you’re part of it.

          2. DJRippert Avatar

            There is no income cap on Medicare taxes, is there?

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            True. and that’ what needs to happen to FICA SS also. RIght now, the money spend on employer-provided healthcare does not pay FICA Tax. Nor do tax advantaged IRAs.

        2. DJRippert Avatar

          Q: Given that this shortfall has been known for decades, why weren’t benefits reduced decades ago so that there wouldn’t be a cliff on the day the Trust Fund runs out?

          A: Because the politicians we elect are the worst kind of gutless cowards who will happily kick any can down the road until there is a a full-blown crisis (and trust me, Larry – the day SSN benefits fall 25% it will be a full-blown crisis).

          Q: Given the willingness of the clowns in Congress to ignore the depletion of the SS Trust Fund, what does that say about the future of the US economy?

          A: Boomergeddon. Jim Bacon is right. The clowns we are electing would rather drive the country off a cliff than risk short term re-election by making hard decisions today.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            The last time it was changed when? And they DID set it up to generate a surplus that would gradually get drawn down until the time the next adjustment was needed.

            DJ, I don’t think you really understand how SS works conceptually or programmatically. SS is a kind of annuity. It has the same issue that most company and govt, school teachers pensions have and that is they pay for as long as you live even if you far outlive what you contributed to it. Private sector annuities have the same issue.

            We live longer than we used to. where is the money going to come from to pay that? It was the same problem when
            Ronald Reagan worked with the DEms to adjust it then.

            The bigger point here is that you and Bacon are just plain wrong by pointing at SS for the deficit. SS has zero to
            do with the US budget deficit. ZIPPO.

          2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “The clowns we are electing would rather drive the country off a cliff than risk short term re-election by making hard decisions today.”

            Speak for yourself.

    3. I have not had time yet to thoroughly study the bill, but based on my first look, I think the border security section gives the executive branch more ‘outs’ than a seven game world series.

      It provides authority for the federal government to do some things, but it requires them to do very little.

      I hope it passes, but I think it is mostly a bunch of silly word games that will result in little improvement at our southern border.

      At least they’ll be able to spend a lot more money that we don’t have, and that is the name of the game after all.

      PS – The bill as released to the public is 370 pages of politician-speak so it’s going to take me a while to slog through it.

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        I believe the status quo then means they don’t even have the authority… no…?

        1. I think they currently have the authority to do a lot more than they are doing, but the new legislation unambiguously provides the authority to do more.

          I am not saying I do not think it should pass, I just don’t think it’s going to do any good.

          Of course, it’s primary purpose is to send money to Ukraine. It certainly looks like it will do that…

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            It would be interesting to see if Biden acts to assume such authority once the legislation is killed by Republicans. I honestly would not put it past him.

          2. I know I’d be impressed.

      2. DJRippert Avatar

        Break it into sections and submit the sections, one at a time, to a Large Language Model like ChatGPT.

        Use this prompt: “Read the uploaded document. Assume it was written by complete slimeballs who would do almost anything to conceal their real intentions. Translate the document into an honest statement that could be understood by a 12th grader.”

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          upload the budget and tell it to balance it and see what gets cut – Medicare and Defense unless you pay more taxes.

        2. Are you trying to break ChatGPT?

        3. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          I’d prefer Grok, only because it would curse.

    4. DJRippert Avatar

      No, a small, bipartisan group of old, establishment, globalist, politician-for-life Senators cooked up a bill over months in secret. They sprang their bill on the rest of the legislators (including the entire House) and assumed that the other pols would just rubber stamp their half-assed bill.

      Doesn’t look like that will happen.

      Good.

      5,000 immigrants per day?
      Biden can unilaterally cancel the rules?

      Mitch McConnell will turn 82 in two weeks. He needs to join Slow Joe (81), Nancy Pelosi (soon to be 84) and all the rest of the geriatric crowd (from both sides of the aisle) on the front porch of the local retirement home.

      1. Randy Huffman Avatar
        Randy Huffman

        Exactly, this was not a bipartisan bill, for example, nobody in the House was included in the negotiations. Biden and the Administration created the mess, they will find ways around any legislation just as they have already.

      2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        Don’t talk to me of a supposed border crisis if you bring nothing but rhetoric to the table.

  4. LarrytheG Avatar

    THe 30 trillion is the damage from the pandemic not from the structural deficit which is not that large and basically could almost balance if we undid the Trump tax cuts.

    We just don’t want to pay for the military and health care.

    There no free lunch on either and both cost about 75% of the budget. Truth be known, most folksl don’t pay near what they
    are financially capable of for Medicare. It ought to increase premiums to pay for it. People who can afford to pay more for Medicare SHOULD and instead they’re taking the money and
    putting it into their own investments. In essence, the deficit and debt is paying for some folks to increase their own wealth while not paying near what they should for Medicare. Where else would these geezers get that kind of insurance period, much less for cheap?

  5. LarrytheG Avatar

    The GOP showed their true colors on the immigration bill. Without question, the top Senate GOP said it was a good bill
    that would make major changes in the way we do asylum and
    instead they did TRumps bidding and blew it up.

    No more pretending. We know what the GOP wants and it’s not immigration reform. That’s just the bait.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      But this kinda still makes Bacon’s point about how broken Washington is, doesn’t it? Compromise is now a dirty word in both camps. The Senate bill was also drawing fire on the left.

      1. The Senate bill was also drawing fire on the left.

        Now, now. I’m sure there is a perfectly logical and justifiable reason for that – not like those evil republicans…

      2. LarrytheG Avatar

        THe Dems were willing to compromise on immigration, no? SS is not going to help the deficit and talking about it
        like it’s needs to be is info for low info voters IMO. But again, who wants to fix it and who wants to see it continue to
        twist in the wind and use it dishonestly as a deficit issue? We’re gonna balance the budget by not providing health
        care to low income so they can be productive workers? What kind of sense does that make? The two big legitimate targets
        are Medicare Part B (not A) and “defense” which includes all the homeland security parts also. The remaining is nibbling
        around the edges. Like I said, we simply don’t want to do, as individuals and taxpayers what needs to be done
        to get to a balanced budget. We all want to keep everything and give up nothing. We want our goodies for free.

      3. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        The extreme left, but the entire right.

        McConnell once said he would be unwilling to a 90-10 compromise. Guess he really meant that. Won’t even accept a 100-0 compromise.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          ” “There are some people who would have you stand on principle that if you don’t get all that you’ve asked for from the legislature, you jump off the cliff with the flag flying. I have always figured that half a loaf is better than none and I know that in the democratic process, you’re not always going to get what you want.”

          RINO!

      4. The Senate bill was also drawing fire on the left.

        Now, now. I’m sure there is a perfectly logical and justifiable reason for that – not like those evil republicans…

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          the left was bellowing because their OX was getting gored (like they wanted the dreamers protected) but they were not going to stop it, unlike the who negotiated in good faith with the Dems then ran away when TRump threatened them.

          Feckless cowards IMO who are putting their money on a fella who admits he’s gonna to “rule” no matter the laws and Constitution – like he did before.

          1. the left was bellowing because their OX was getting gored (like they wanted the dreamers protected) but they were not going to stop it

            The “progressives” in the House of Reprehensibles have pledged to stop it if it makes it to them.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            If the bill had bipartisan support, their opposition would amount to posturing. The difference is that the Dems
            won’t let their far left folks stop legislation, they’ll join the moderate GOP to get it through, whereas all the GOP needs is a few far right and Trump to stop anything including the very thing the GOP has been demanding on immigration.

            It’s clear to me what the GOP wants and it ain’t governing. It’s Trump rule and any hope of any kind of true Dem/GOp
            legislation is history under Trump who will decide what legislation will pass or not. Not the way the country was designed.

        2. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          No Dreamer provisions. Still gonna deport that 24-year old brought here by his parents when he was 2. Too bad his parents died when he was 20, he never learned his native language, and he doesn’t know anyone in his parent’s former country.

          1. If the “dreamer” was brought here by parents and stayed here with them, and they have been here more than, say, ten years, then I think they should be allowed to take the citizenship test.

            Once granted citizenship, though, they should be treated just as badly by our government as any other citizen.

            PS – Time in country is negotiable, but not the part about their post-citizenship treatment by the government…

          2. If the “dreamer” was brought here by parents and stayed here with them, and they have been here more than, say, ten years, then I think they should be allowed to take the citizenship test.

            Once granted citizenship, though, they should be treated just as badly by our government as any other citizen.

            PS – Time in country is negotiable, but not the part about their post-citizenship treatment by the government…

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            You just took the Dem position and in opposition to the GOP.

          4. Okay.

            I don’t know how many times I have to tell you I am not a republican, but I don’t suppose one more time will hurt anything.

            Larry, I am not a republican. I am 100% independent in thought and deed.

            I only have on hard and fast rule when it comes to supporting a candidate – if you try to screw with my guns you will not get my vote. Everything else is negotiable.

          5. Okay.

            I don’t know how many times I have to tell you I am not a republican, but I don’t suppose one more time will hurt anything.

            Larry, I am not a republican. I am 100% independent in thought and deed.

            I only have one hard and fast rule when it comes to supporting a candidate – if you try to screw with my guns you will not get my vote. Everything else is negotiable.

            The 2nd amendment is my constitutional litmus test.

          6. LarrytheG Avatar

            You’re sure not a Dem! 😉

          7. I am 100% independent in thought and deed.

          8. LarrytheG Avatar

            and don’t lean left or right…….

          9. LarrytheG Avatar

            My impression is that you tend to lean right far more than left. correct?

          10. That is probably your impression.

            But you consider supporting the Constitution of the United States in its entirety to be a “right wing” position.

            I do not. I consider supporting the Constitution of the United States in its entirety to be a moderate position.

            Right now, I loathe the democrat party a little bit more than I loathe the republican party.

            I have to say, though, the republicans seem to be working very hard to catch up…

          11. LarrytheG Avatar

            If “progressives” is a pejorative for the left what is the pejorative for the right?

          12. You would know better than I.

            I am not using “progressive” as a pejorative, I am using it to point out the hypocrisy of many of the people who assign that moniker to themselves.

          13. LarrytheG Avatar

            ah.. so it IS a pejorative ? I see it used here in BR that way all the time but what is a similar pejorative for the right? I don’t think progressives have the market on hypocrisy. right?

          14. I don’t think progressives have the market on hypocrisy.

            Nor do I.

          15. LarrytheG Avatar

            so what do we call folks on the right if the ones on the left are progressives, anti-progressives?

          16. Well, Know Nothings has already been used, so perhaps No! Nothings

          17. Well, Know Nothings has already been used, so perhaps No! Nothings

          18. LarrytheG Avatar

            not far right?

          19. Far-right is fine. I thought you were looking for a ‘catchy’ name.

          20. LarrytheG Avatar

            taking a break , given yourself a rest.

          21. Lefty665 Avatar

            You’d think that unconditional support for the Constitution would be a non controversial and non partisan base line for all Americans. Sadly not so.

      5. Teddy007 Avatar

        Bush I compromised with the Democrats in Congress in 1991 over higher taxes now for spending cuts later. The spending cuts never came and the tax hikes were used against Bush I in 1992.
        Both sides have never really compromised. What we remember is one party being in charge with enough margin to be able to ignore the other party.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          When Trump cut taxes, and not spending? It’s the Dems fault?

          I don’t hold the Dems blameless by a long shot but you can’t do tax cuts like Trump did and repeat the bogus claim that cutting taxes generates more revenue.

          Tax cuts do not pay for themselves much less generate more.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f068e78e3d274d497fbdc3dff3a2804924ff979e9d5240e5c6e84e4e1caf1093.png

        2. LarrytheG Avatar

          When Trump cut taxes, and not spending? It’s the Dems fault?

          I don’t hold the Dems blameless by a long shot but you can’t do tax cuts like Trump did and repeat the bogus claim that cutting taxes generates more revenue.

          Tax cuts do not pay for themselves much less generate more.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f068e78e3d274d497fbdc3dff3a2804924ff979e9d5240e5c6e84e4e1caf1093.png

          1. Teddy007 Avatar

            Obama added 8 trillion to the debt in 8 years. And Biden added $2 trillion in a single year for political purposes. Both parties have learned to spend as much as possible and finance it with debt. If one talks about cutting taxes without cutting spending, all they are really doing is talking about postponing taxes until the future.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            Look at that chart after Obama and before Trump. When TRump cut taxes and not spending, what happened after that was Trumps and yep.. we’re choosing deficits because we don’t want to give up those
            tax cuts. We do not collect enough taxes to pay for Health Care and Defense. And we don’t want to cut Health Care
            or Defense. And that’s how we elect people that cut taxes instead of spending.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/27bc13e034f9e471ab1bea27bd25d20e7296249a80bc7019e6bc13ba50013017.png

          3. Teddy007 Avatar

            Democrats always pass a stimulus bill their first year and Republicans always pass a tax cut. However, neither should be done. If one worries about the future, then raise taxes to cover all spending and let the voters know what paying full retail for government services feels like.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar

            Well, you can’t expect to cut deficits by cutting taxes, despite claims to the opposite sometimes. And in the end,
            it’s a stark choice between health care and defense that comprise roughly 3/4 of the budget. One can argue that
            health care and education can increase per capita productivity, whereas tax cuts often increases the wealth of
            those who get the tax cuts.

          5. Teddy007 Avatar

            Since 1990 education spending has doubled after correcting for inflation. Yet, no one can find any real positive results of all of the spending.

          6. LarrytheG Avatar

            At the Federal Level? The Feds don’t fund schools. THey pay for things like Title 1 and it’s miniscule part
            of the budget to boot. Something like 82 billion.

          7. Teddy007 Avatar

            The spending has doubled at the state and local level. Even Youngkin increased spending on schools. Where is the metric that shows that the spending did anything. Everyone from Youngkin to the teachers unions make school policy under the assumption that every children can master calculus. When policy is made under that delusion, schools will fail.

          8. LarrytheG Avatar

            current deficit about 1.4 trillion. Current Dept of Education budget about 100 billion. That reduces the deficit to 1.3 trillion even if one believed that it contributes nothing to education. It provides Title 1 resources and resources for disabled children, autism, etc.

            You won’t come close to closing the defict.

            75% of the budget is defense, Medicare, Medicaid and Veterans health care. Working on the other 25% to cut the deficit won’t do it.

        3. Lefty665 Avatar

          Uh, in ’93 Clinton and Greenspan reached an agreement that Clinton would moderate demands for increased spending and Greenspan would keep interest rates low. It worked. The last 2 years of Clinton budgets were in surplus and the national debt was forecast to be paid off in 2018.

          Debt was being paid off so quickly that Treasury had to go to 10 year notes for its open market operations because too many 30s were being retired.

          Duhbya never met a problem whose solution was not tax cuts and we’ve been back on the road to hell with lower taxes and higher spending ever since. We are in a bipartisan hand basket.

          1. Teddy007 Avatar

            It was easy for Clinton to not do any new spending. Clinton triangulated off of the Republicans and the Congressional Democrats. The Republicans were in control of the House and Senate and were not going to approve any new spending programs. Clinton also had a drawn down in the military and had a booming economy that increased tax revenue and lowered social safety net spending.
            Now the U.S. has jobless recoveries, the poorest americans have the most children, and the population is, on average, older and consuming more government services.
            There is no going back to the 1990’s. Clinton was the closest the U.S. has been to have a libertarian President and the Democrats refuse to even think about going back.

          2. Lefty665 Avatar

            Uh, sorry making up history doesn’t work. The Dems were running Congress when Clinton came into office and cut the deal with Greenspan. The Repubs didn’t gain control of the House and Senate until 1995 (11/94 election).

            Clinton did face down pent up Dem demands for spending, and squeaked by on very close votes. The Dems were chomping at the bit after 12 years of Reagan/Bush restraint. Triangulation was one tactic to achieve that strategy, but a minor one until Dick Morris showed up with it as a major tactic for the ’96 campaign.

            The subsequent booming economy was largely the result of the Clinton/Greenspan deal, not the other way around. No doubt booming revenues allowed some of the spending increases Dems wanted. Tax rates were also significantly higher then than they are now.

            You’re too funny. Clinton as a libertarian is laughable. Please tell another knee slapper. I believe you have confused libertarian with libertine.

          3. Teddy007 Avatar

            During the last six years of the Clinton Administration, the Republicans were in control of the House and Senate. Thus, no new spending programs, no new entitlements, and no new regulatory programs. Remember, Clinton was the one who signed laws about restricting welfare. Amd tax rates were veru similar to today and were higher only for the middle and lower middle classes.

          4. Lefty665 Avatar

            What I was responding to was your flat wrong assertion that the Repubs were in control of Congress when Clinton cut his deal with Greenspan. They were not, and Clinton had a huge internal fight with Dems over all the things they wanted that they did not get while Reagan/Bush were in power. That was 12 years of pent up Dem demand. You can’t dodge that by dancing to the later Clinton years.

            The Repubs recaptured Congress in ’94 because of things the Dems and Clinton did, like “don’t ask don’t tell”, the Hillary health care debacle and legislating against the Constitution, the Second Amendment in particular.

            Triangulation with stuff like “ending welfare as we know it” was a Dick Morris strategy that Clinton embraced for his ’96 re election campaign after the devastating ’94 mid terms.

            Tax rates were significantly higher for everyone than they are today. They did not come down until Duhbya used them as the solution to every problem. Prosperity, tax cuts, recession, tax cuts, war, tax cuts.

            You’re not Big Brother, you don’t get to rewrite history to fit your preferred narrative of the moment.

          5. Teddy007 Avatar

            IF Hillarycare had passed in the first two years of the Clinton Administration, then all of the rosy budget numbers would not have happened. Clinton, unlike Obama, figured out how to work with Republicans and get some popular things done. And the top marginal tax rate was much lower in 1993 than in 1986. https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-highest-marginal-income-tax-rates

          6. Lefty665 Avatar

            The absolute highest bracket did come down from the residue of very high New Deal marginal rates still in effect in the early ’80s, but rates overall were significantly higher than they are today. Reducing those rates happened with Duhbya and have maintained under both Repubs and Dems since.

            The deal seems to be that the Dems allow the Repubs to cut taxes while the Repubs allow the Dems to spend. That has got to stop. Modern monetary theory that governments can print infinite amounts of money without consequences is a fantasy. Recent inflation has made that unmistakably clear.

            National debt almost doubled, from over $5T to $10T on Duhbya’s watch, although by its subsequent growth that seems a modest increase. That more recent growth, and projected future explosion was the subject of Powell’s comments. We have had national debt greater than GDP since 2014. That is not sustainable. Powell’s observation that it is an urgent problem was right on target.

            Coulda, woulda, shoulda, the mess Hillary made of health care killed it for close to a generation. Hillarycare was never going to pass even a Dem controlled Congress. The deal Bill cut with Greenspan in ’93 to restrain Dem spending in exchange for low interest rates was what drove the ’90s boom that generated gobs of revenue and the surpluses at the end of Clinton’s term that enabled forecasts of paying off the national debt by 2018.

          7. Lefty665 Avatar

            The absolute highest bracket did come down from the residue of very high New Deal marginal rates still in effect in the early ’80s, but rates overall were significantly higher than they are today. Reducing those rates happened with Duhbya and have maintained under both Repubs and Dems since.

            The deal seems to be that the Dems allow the Repubs to cut taxes while the Repubs allow the Dems to spend. That has got to stop. Modern monetary theory that governments can print infinite amounts of money without consequences is a fantasy. Recent inflation has made that unmistakably clear.

            National debt almost doubled, from over $5T to $10T on Duhbya’s watch, although by its subsequent growth that seems a modest increase. That more recent growth, and projected future explosion was the subject of Powell’s comments. We have had national debt greater than GDP since 2014. That is not sustainable. Powell’s observation that it is an urgent problem was right on target.

            Coulda, woulda, shoulda, the mess Hillary made of health care killed it for close to a generation. Hillarycare was never going to pass even a Dem controlled Congress. The deal Bill cut with Greenspan in ’93 to restrain Dem spending in exchange for low interest rates was what drove the ’90s boom that generated gobs of revenue and the surpluses at the end of Clinton’s term that enabled forecasts of paying off the national debt by 2018.

          8. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Clinton was an opportunist, a pure politician whom would bend whichever way kept him in power.

      6. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        “Compromise is now a dirty word in both camps.”

        Nope, not on both sides. If a bill “draws fire” from the left, they are still well enough behaved to let it pass. The Right has real problems in that area these days.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          True. Name the last compromise bill that the hard left shot down….

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      But this kinda still makes Bacon’s point about how broken Washington is, doesn’t it? Compromise is now a dirty word in both camps. The Senate bill was also drawing fire on the left.

  6. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Well, dysfunctional? Yeah, I suppose you could say it’s dysfunctional when one party is willing to accept an insurrection from a white president but wants to decline healthcare from a black president.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      dead on.

  7. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
    f/k/a_tmtfairfax

    When will Congress have the stones to end the tax-exempt status of those nonprofits that regularly meddle in public policy instead of funding direct charitable needs? When will Congress tax gifts to private foundations? Would we be better off with a smaller deficit and no Ford Foundation or Gates Foundation?

    1. Would we be better off with a smaller deficit and no Ford Foundation or Gates Foundation?

      Yes.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        as well as similar entities on the right and donor-advised funding organizations. But again, gnat on a dogs butt in terms of budget and really more of a political thing unless it applies equally to left and right organizations.

        1. I gave my answer to the question asked.

          What part of anything I have ever posted here led you to conclude that I do not support 100% consistent enforcement of the laws of this nation?

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            You could make that same statement for Dems and GOP, right? What makes you different?

          2. I don’t think either crime family, I mean, political party, supports 100% consistent enforcement of the laws of this nation.

            I do. That makes me different.

          3. I don’t think either crime family, I mean political party, supports 100% consistent enforcement of the laws of this nation.

            I do. That makes me different.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar

            I’m sure most left and right will make the same claim , no? I see folks claiming to be independent and/or
            libertarian but a few questions will usually get them better calibrated.
            Few support lawlessness although that’s getting harder to say now.

        2. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
          f/k/a_tmtfairfax

          Across the board! If a charity funds buying land for parks, dental care for poor people or AIDs research, leave them be. But if they push for more or less federal spending, more or less immigration or anything similar, tax them. But there is a constant flow from congressional staff jobs, to SES or political appointment at federal agencies to high-paying nonprofit jobs. Gotta keep the frogs in the pond well fed — no.

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Do you suppose that the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy is tax-exempt?

      1. Well, Planned Parenthood and the NRA are both tax exempt, so…

        …probably?

    3. LarrytheG Avatar

      in terms of budget and deficit, it’s a gnat on a dogs butt… it would have almost no effect on the budget and unless it applied to both left and right organizations, it’s just a political thing.

      1. …and unless it applied to both left and right organizations, it’s just a political thing.

        In what part of his comment did he propose not applying it across the board?

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          you didn’t but I did so we could agree. I was sure you would but needed to check just in case.

  8. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    Recent quote I picked up somewhere recently, paraphrasing since I do not recall the source, was debt is $1-million per person in 20-years, something like that. Anybody else hear that one?

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      It’s $103K/person now.

      The debt has grown from 400B 100 years ago to 34T. Lemme see 34 = 0.4*(1+r)^99.

      To solve for the debt 20 years hence, take the 99th root of (34/0.4). That’s 1+r. Then take that to the 19th, and multiple by 34. That’s the estimated debt. I get 79T.

      Even with ZPG, that’s still only about $210K/person.

      A better way to think of it is that the house the average family lives in is debt.

      I hate quoting the Bible. It gives people the wrong impression. But remember those 7 years of plenty and 7 years of lean? What did What’s His Name do? He taxed in the plenty years.

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        An interesting question. According to ChatGPT, (as of its last update – January 2022) the CBO projected that the debt in 2043 would be $122,000 on a per capita basis under current law.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          That’s including a whole helluva lot more than just an extrapolation of the debt. Don’t know where the proposed $1M came from, but it’s soooo out of line with reality, it has to be a joke or typical Republican (MAGA) scare.

          Looking at the 100 year debt average annual rate of increase, it’s 4%. But restrict to the beginning of irresponsible borrowing (Ronald Reagan) and it’s just about 7%.

  9. But even in Virginia, most are in denial.

    I’m not in denial, I’m just 100% certain that there is absolutely nothing I can do to prevent it, and only a little bit I can do to prepare for it.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      That”s my priority. How to position assets?

      Since posting above I found a WSJ editorial positive on the Senate bill. I take their opinions seriously.

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      That’s my priority. How to position assets to ride the storm?

      Since posting above I found a WSJ editorial positive on the Senate bill. I take their opinions seriously. Worth reading.

      https://www.wsj.com/articles/senate-border-security-bill-james-lankford-republicans-immigration-biden-border-patrol-asylum-bc2f9543?mod=opinion_lead_pos1

  10. walter smith Avatar
    walter smith

    I think Powell may have been hinting that “the long term” is here now. It is. It has been. And the Obama ZIRP (zero interest rate policy) prolonged profligate spending, screwed over retirees whose $500,000 nest egg would now earn less than $5,000 annually when they had planned on $25,000, AND enriched the private equity people with easy financing of huge piles of arbitrage money).
    But, hey, here in VA, we have protected the unfettered right to kill babies and ended legacy admissions (like that was ever considered a problem by anybody other than the Marxists, who will nonetheless continue to break the law with their racially discriminatory admissions tricks.)

  11. LarrytheG Avatar

    re: ” and it will be only a decade before the Social Security Trust fund runs out and sparks a fiscal/political crisis.”

    BUt the primary funding for SS is from the FICA tax which in the budget is almost as much revenue as the income tax. SS will never “go broke”. It will have to pay reduced benefits but the reason why is not prolificate spending, deficits and debts, it’s because people are living longer and less people are contributing to FICA and the fact that FICA tax is not collected on income that pays for health insurance. fiscally easy to fix. Politically, some prefer it to twist and turn just as they do for other issues.

    1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      Low birth rates and low numbers paying-into SS is the issue. I know you want to say your solution is higher taxes, but lets tell the truth on prob cause.

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        Longer life expectancy as well… also the boomer bulge is a real thing… the problem has been well known for some time… solution (for some reason) is more difficult.

      2. Lefty665 Avatar

        Actually that’s not so. The “probable cause”, and real cause is that SS taxes at current rates are not being collected on 90% of wages as Greenspan’s fix was predicated on, and collections at the time actually were.

        Subsequent income went mostly to the rich, FICA limits did not keep up, and now we collect on the low 80’s percent of wages. Bring FICA back up to covering 90% of wages and SS is solvent for the next century. It’s really pretty simple, but as JAB notes, Congress is not willing to be fiscally responsible.

        As it is it is just one more tax break for the rich. They pay at lower rates than the rest of the country.

        1. DJRippert Avatar

          How is overpaying into a supposed retirement fund a tax break for the rich?

          The rich already pay in more than they will ever get out (adjusted for inflation).

          Medicare is much worse.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            They’re paying their fair share like everyone else is and they’ll get their SS and 90% will be glad they can get Medicare from the govt because if they tried to get it from the private sector, if they could get it at 65, it would cost them thousands per month and eat their savings.

            The Govt also gives the rich tax-advantaged IRAs and other “goodies” in exchange for paying their fair share of FICA.

      3. LarrytheG Avatar

        Have to address the reality that SS used to be for folks who would die after retiring in a few years. That’s no longer
        true. So how would you fix? by deficit spending or by having people pay the true cost of their benefits? People live longer. It’s not a evil scheme from progressives. How do you want to pay for living longer? I think FICA/SS works pretty good. It’s way more than retirement. It’s an annuity that pays you if you become disabled. Pays survivor benefits to spouse and kids. Pay you money until you die no matter how much you put into it. What would be better to replace it that would deliver all those things?

        1. DJRippert Avatar

          “Have to address the reality that SS used to be for folks who would die after retiring in a few years. That’s no longer
          true.”

          You keep saying that without acknowledging that the social security tax went from 1% of income (matched by the employer) in 1937 to 6.2% (matched by the employer) today.

          Is it your contention that people are retired 6.2 times longer today than they were in 1937?

          Maybe you’re right but that’s the question.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            Party. When SS was first created it was something like 5-10 yr time between retirement to death and something like 40% of seniors lived in poverty. The point was to require people to set aside money for their retirement instead of having taxpayers pay them entitlements. The 6.1% or whatever was what people would pay towards their own retirement without having others pay it. Cost of living has to be paid for also. Workers who got disabled and/or died and their families became wards of the state. The point of SS was to not have other taxpayers paying for the retirement, disability, death, survivors, etc – but from a fund they were themselves paying into.

          2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “Is it your contention that people are retired 6.2 times longer today than they were in 1937?”

            In the 30’s life expectancy was about 63. So the average post-65 life expectancy was -2 years. Current life expectancy is 77 and climbing. So current post-65 life expectancy is now 12 years … easily more than a 6x increase.

          3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “Is it your contention that people are retired 6.2 times longer today than they were in 1937?”

            In the 30’s life expectancy was about 63. So the average post-65 life expectancy was -2 years. Current life expectancy is 77 and climbing. So current post-65 life expectancy is now 12 years … easily more than a 6x increase.

          4. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “Is it your contention that people are retired 6.2 times longer today than they were in 1937?”

            In the 30’s life expectancy was about 63. So the average post-65 life expectancy was -2 years. Current life expectancy is 77 and climbing. So current post-65 life expectancy is now 12 years … easily more than a 6x increase.

  12. Lefty665 Avatar

    A 10 year window may be optimistic, and part of Powell’s concern may be much shorter term.

    Overnight deposits with the Fed have been shrinking, from about $2.5T to $600B, a level recently forecast to occur only by late 2024, while the interest rates needed to attract them have spiked. What Powell really does not want is a liquidity crisis, and that is where the abruptly declining overnight deposits indicate we are headed.

    The solution is for the Fed to switch back from Quantitative Tightening (QT – selling Treasuries and mortgage backed securities (MBS) from its balance sheet to suck excess liquidity out of the system), as it is now doing to Quantitative Easing (QE – buying Treasuries and MBS to put liquidity into the system) as it was to provide needed liquidity during Covid. Then QE and interest rates changed to target inflation. The problem is in large part the huge fiscal stimulus of deficit spending that has both driven inflation and the exploding national debt Powell was focusing on.

    Powell and the Fed were banking on inflation coming down to close to targeted rates before they switched back to QE. However when they are prematurely forced to move back to QE that adds stimulus to an economy already overstimulated by fiscal deficits. That will drive inflation rates back up. The FED is in a box with no good alternatives. QE was at about $150T a month and that is the rate of QT now. That change when implemented is a $300T a month swing, real money in anyone’s book.

    Added QE stimulus will limit the room to decrease interest rates which will also keep borrowing rates to finance the debt high. Current hyper focus on lowering interest rates and the illusion of a miraculous “soft landing” are premature. We are headed to back to the rate of inflation increasing. Monetary policy is constrained, we have to have enough liquidity to keep the economy moving. Reduced fiscal stimulus is the tool that is available to limit inflation, thus Powell’s focus on deficit spending, even if he is cloaking it in terms of unsustainable debt rather than getting down into the weeds and raising an alarm about the immediate liquidity problem he faces.

    A guess is that it will take about 3 months to unwind QT and another quarter to implement QE. That’s roughly the rate of change when policy last switched. That will likely revolve around monthly Federal Reserve Board meetings.

    Revenues are running about 19% of GDP and Expenses at close to 23%. Those numbers need to come much closer together. I am not holding my breath waiting for Congress or the Administration to cut spending or to raise taxes, or both as is needed to put our financial house in order.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Normally I’d be concerned, but it really is a game without rules, and at any moment, something can disrupt whatever we think it’s supposed to do.

      1. Lefty665 Avatar

        ?? You and I will probably be dead before it comes completely unglued. But I worry for my grandkids.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          By that time, they’ll change things up. Remember, they ARE smarter than we. They know how to set the clock on the VCR. 😉

          1. Lefty665 Avatar

            Hey man I like my Beta:) Some of the geriatrics don’t know anything newer than record players (remember when 45 wasn’t just a caliber?) and others so young they believe modern monetary theory fairy tales. Most of the tweens don’t have much insight either.

Leave a Reply