- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The GOP wants to add $3T to the debt
Posted on 2/17/25 at 7:35 am to Auburn1968
Posted on 2/17/25 at 7:35 am to Auburn1968
He’s gonna put all of that money into President Musk’s hands
Posted on 2/17/25 at 7:36 am to LSUFanHouston
Trump is treating America like his own private casino
Posted on 2/17/25 at 7:52 am to RobbBobb
quote:
We found it (DOGE), why cant we keep it? Whats that verse in the Bible, Finders Keepers, Losers Weepers? Or something along those lines
So it’s up to Musk?
Be great if Congress would do their jobs
Posted on 2/17/25 at 7:53 am to LSUFanHouston
quote:
Be great if Congress would do their jobs
They are lifers, they forgot their job in their 1st terms.
Posted on 2/17/25 at 7:57 am to LSUFanHouston
Don’t spend what isn’t yours yo spend on the first place.
Posted on 2/17/25 at 8:06 am to shrevetigertom
quote:
Please learn about the Laffer Curve.
I’m fairly certain that has already been considered when coming up with these numbers.
Posted on 2/17/25 at 8:38 am to LSUFanHouston
I had (and still have) the same concern as you, although I read the actual blueprint over the weekend and there’s one nuance I wanted to mention. Let’s start with the basics (and note all dollar amounts are ten-year aggregates):
(1) The blueprint authorizes Ways and Means to increase the deficit by up to $4.5T. This is legal speak for “lower taxes.”
(2) The blueprint mentions the various departments and requires them to either increase the deficit (i.e. increase spending) or decrease the deficit (i.e. decrease spending) by a net amount that everyone seems to be reporting as $1.5T in decreased deficit (i.e. lower net spending).
(3) Here’s the part that not enough people are talking about. The blueprint specifies (I’m not going to use the word “requires,” because I’m not sure how binding it is) that the $4.5T in tax reductions shall be reduced dollar for dollar for any amount of net mandatory spending reductions that is less than $2.0T.
So, taking that at face value, your $3T becomes $2.5T. And then it’s not clear to me if there’s 100% overlap between the $1.5T of called out net departmental spending reductions and the $2.0T of net “mandatory” spending reductions. To the extent the $1.5T includes some additional net spending reductions that are not part of the $2.0T mandatory threshold, the $2.5T would be reduced further.
Basically, this is a step in the right direction, but more steps in the right direction are required. I’m not sure why most in this thread can’t acknowledge that this seems good but we should push for more net spending reductions.
(1) The blueprint authorizes Ways and Means to increase the deficit by up to $4.5T. This is legal speak for “lower taxes.”
(2) The blueprint mentions the various departments and requires them to either increase the deficit (i.e. increase spending) or decrease the deficit (i.e. decrease spending) by a net amount that everyone seems to be reporting as $1.5T in decreased deficit (i.e. lower net spending).
(3) Here’s the part that not enough people are talking about. The blueprint specifies (I’m not going to use the word “requires,” because I’m not sure how binding it is) that the $4.5T in tax reductions shall be reduced dollar for dollar for any amount of net mandatory spending reductions that is less than $2.0T.
So, taking that at face value, your $3T becomes $2.5T. And then it’s not clear to me if there’s 100% overlap between the $1.5T of called out net departmental spending reductions and the $2.0T of net “mandatory” spending reductions. To the extent the $1.5T includes some additional net spending reductions that are not part of the $2.0T mandatory threshold, the $2.5T would be reduced further.
Basically, this is a step in the right direction, but more steps in the right direction are required. I’m not sure why most in this thread can’t acknowledge that this seems good but we should push for more net spending reductions.
Posted on 2/17/25 at 8:51 am to LSUFanHouston
Not necessarily directed at you, but anyone who thought electing Trump was going to cause slashing of the debt hasn't been paying attention at all.
Posted on 2/17/25 at 8:58 am to LSUFanHouston
You're not smart enough to make this analysis.
Posted on 2/17/25 at 9:57 am to BozemanTiger
quote:
You're not smart enough to make this analysis
I’m smart enough to make the analysis. The typical PT poster isn’t smart enough to follow it.
A few posters are smart enough, and the rest if you need to stay at the kiddie table.
Posted on 2/17/25 at 10:32 am to LSUFanHouston
quote:
A few posters are smart enough, and the rest if you need to stay at the kiddie table.

Posted on 2/17/25 at 10:46 am to Jimbeaux
quote:A good way to build up a sludge in your engine. If you try to clean it out by dissolving the sludge, you likely clog up ports. Require an engine replacement. I know this because I bought a used Nissan Maxima a number of years ago. Started having white smoke come out of one the exhausts.
“I went 30,000 miles without an oil change, and my car still runs! Oil changes are imaginary fairy dust!”
Posted on 2/17/25 at 10:47 am to LSUFanHouston
Good I don’t give a frick, the debt is fake
Posted on 2/17/25 at 11:43 am to BBONDS25
quote:
your joke of an OP, you still have the gall to say this? You’re an uneducated idiot.
I’m terribly sorry you aren’t smart enough to participate
Let me put it in terms you might understand.
Oooga Booga deficit spending bad
This post was edited on 2/17/25 at 11:44 am
Posted on 2/17/25 at 11:45 am to Big4SALTbro
quote:
Good I don’t give a frick, the debt is fake
Sounds like we've accepted MMT as the economics of MAGA
Posted on 2/17/25 at 1:32 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
I’m terribly sorry you aren’t smart enough to participate Let me put it in terms you might understand. Oooga Booga deficit spending bad

This post was edited on 2/17/25 at 3:08 pm
Posted on 2/17/25 at 2:15 pm to LSUFanHouston
Gonna cut 1% of the yearly budget from the federal workforce. Likely chasing off the good employees and being stuck with the turds hanging on for dear life. That’s how RTO and other schemes have worked everywhere else in the private sector. Do tax cuts that mostly advantage the same types of people and corporations who want to leave this country in the lurch. Tax cuts are about half a yearly budget worth of revenue lost.
Just absolute brain genius shite.
Just absolute brain genius shite.
Posted on 2/17/25 at 2:29 pm to LSUFanHouston
Democrats care about spending and deficits now?
Well, baby steps, I guess.
Well, baby steps, I guess.
Posted on 2/17/25 at 3:36 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Sounds like we've accepted MMT as the economics of MAGA
Debt is fake and economy is good simply by Guy I Like being president. Amazing!
Posted on 2/17/25 at 3:50 pm to Tmcgin
This board is preoccupied with the conman's misdirection
The debt is shifting to a new swamp
Elon will make out like a bandit
But he's sucked billions from us for over a decade
It's Trump derangement to think otherwise
--------------
Okay, low IQ, you win the daily low IQ prize. Your comment is that of an imbecile. Because Elon, so, needs another billion. I mean, he only has over $400B now, so yep, he's IN IT for the $$$. Idiot.
The debt is shifting to a new swamp
Elon will make out like a bandit
But he's sucked billions from us for over a decade
It's Trump derangement to think otherwise
--------------
Okay, low IQ, you win the daily low IQ prize. Your comment is that of an imbecile. Because Elon, so, needs another billion. I mean, he only has over $400B now, so yep, he's IN IT for the $$$. Idiot.
Popular
Back to top
