Big beautiful bill updates (SIAP)

104,828 Views | 1271 Replies | Last: 7 mo ago by techno-ag
Deputy Travis Junior
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4 said:

Ducks4brkfast said:

Deputy Travis Junior said:

I believe in low taxes not just as a matter of policy, but as an ethical imperative, and even I'm struggling to justify tax cuts in the face of $2 trillion deficits. This bill is "kick the can down the road and let our kids deal with the consequences" bull*****
Yep. We're cutting taxes and spending more money than we bring in. Insanity.

By cutting taxes, we will bring more money in.
Clearly not more than we are spending, but we will bring more in. That has been proven time and time again.


This isn't unequivocally true. Depends on the state of the economy (hot versus cold) and how bad current tax policy is. In any case, the simulative effect has to enough that we end up so that lower rate * bigger GDP > higher rate * smaller GDP.

Unemployment is still pretty low and market multiples are high (could argue strongly for overheated). Plus, taxes are fairly low already. So I'm not sure how much of a stimulative benefit we'll get from cutting taxes. Highly skeptical that it'll offset the tax losses.
Jeeper79
How long do you want to ignore this user?
What exactly are we conserving anymore?
Malibu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We are conserving an American tradition of overleverage.
Malibu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Deputy Travis Junior said:

I believe in low taxes not just as a matter of policy, but as an ethical imperative, and even I'm struggling to justify tax cuts in the face of $2 trillion deficits. This bill is "kick the can down the road and let our kids deal with the consequences" bull*****
It's no longer our kids. Unless you're on your way out, WE are the kids that will have to deal with the fallout. Real estate, precious metals, farmland, and multinational high cap firms that pay dividends are your best friends right now.
Jeeper79
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Malibu said:

Deputy Travis Junior said:

I believe in low taxes not just as a matter of policy, but as an ethical imperative, and even I'm struggling to justify tax cuts in the face of $2 trillion deficits. This bill is "kick the can down the road and let our kids deal with the consequences" bull*****
It's no longer our kids. Unless you're on your way out, WE are the kids that will have to deal with the fallout. Real estate, precious metals, farmland, and multinational high cap firms that pay dividends are your best friends right now.
Anyone without generational wealth or the or earnings locked in could see a tough road ahead. And if the Dems regain control, even that may not be a safety net.
WestAustinAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Lower taxes spur growth. Growth powers the economy. And the government brings in hundreds of billions more in tax revenue even though tax rates are lower. This happens every time.

We need really smart tax cuts (or just continuing them instead of stopping them). And we need to massively cut government expenses. Massively. Like 3 or 4 trillion a year. Starting right now.
WestAustinAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Fitch said:

Probably worth acknowledging that the only path to truly resolve the national debt from just spending cuts is to completely (or nearly completely) axe social security and medicare. As in delete them from the budget or just go ahead and put a cut off on them that anyone under "XX" age will not be eligible to receive payments while maintaining the tax through the death of all current recipients.

The expansion of those programs under the Greatest Generation and Boomers ~80% of the reason for the debt levels we have, with the last 20% being Bretton Woods and the monetary system we created which allows us to run perpetual deficits and accumulate debt.

Having said that, strictly cutting the spending is one way but not the only way to shrink the expanding debt. Certainly the quickest and most straight forward, but GDP growth in excess of debt growth also gets to the same end over a longer term and inflating the debts way is the other, nuclear, option.



Allow SS to grow with the market. Invest it in relatively aafe marketable securities and bonds. That solves 90% of the problem right there. Delay SS until 65. Then in 10 years push it to 70.

Tie work programs to Medicare.

Logos Stick
How long do you want to ignore this user?
People are dumping US treasuries. The question is why. The 30 year yield rose to 5%.

Matt Hooper
How long do you want to ignore this user?
As most posters have noted our problem is excessive gov't spending. Plus massive fraud and waste.

Tax revenue is not our problem. There should be no issue running our country, in balance or with surplus, with the tax generation we have had for the first 25 years of this century.

I would note - extending the existing tax structure is not a tax cut. It's a continuation of the status quo. Additional things like not tax on tips or social security (which was always non-sensical) is a new tax cut for some, but not the extension of existing tax rats.
Kansas Kid
How long do you want to ignore this user?
WestAustinAg said:

Fitch said:

Probably worth acknowledging that the only path to truly resolve the national debt from just spending cuts is to completely (or nearly completely) axe social security and medicare. As in delete them from the budget or just go ahead and put a cut off on them that anyone under "XX" age will not be eligible to receive payments while maintaining the tax through the death of all current recipients.

The expansion of those programs under the Greatest Generation and Boomers ~80% of the reason for the debt levels we have, with the last 20% being Bretton Woods and the monetary system we created which allows us to run perpetual deficits and accumulate debt.

Having said that, strictly cutting the spending is one way but not the only way to shrink the expanding debt. Certainly the quickest and most straight forward, but GDP growth in excess of debt growth also gets to the same end over a longer term and inflating the debts way is the other, nuclear, option.



Allow SS to grow with the market. Invest it in relatively aafe marketable securities and bonds. That solves 90% of the problem right there. Delay SS until 65. Then in 10 years push it to 70.

Tie work programs to Medicare.



And where are you getting the money to invest SS into safe and marketable securities? There is no money in SS, only government IOUs. Only place to get money for this is to borrow it. We should have done this when the system was created along with not creating a ponzi scheme from the get go but that ship sailed decades ago.

As for your age brackets, we already are on path for full benefit retirement age of 67 for those born after 1960. We need to increase that materially but do it now not in 10 years. There are bunch of other things we need to do to all entitlement programs to greatly reduce the annual burden on tax payers to have any chance of balancing the budget.
Jeeper79
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Those IOUs are bonds. It's not like it's free borrowed money. That being said, the stock market could probably provide better returns, albeit with non-zero risk.
YouBet
How long do you want to ignore this user?
WestAustinAg said:

Lower taxes spur growth. Growth powers the economy. And the government brings in hundreds of billions more in tax revenue even though tax rates are lower. This happens every time.

We need really smart tax cuts (or just continuing them instead of stopping them). And we need to massively cut government expenses. Massively. Like 3 or 4 trillion a year. Starting right now.


Sure but we aren't making any spending cuts so the tax cuts will have to drum up $3-4T out of thin air to cover all of the increased spending. Cutting taxes for food servers and people on overtime is not going to bring in $3-4T.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Trump is up on Capitol Hill and has now made two stops walking in with Mike Johnson. The look on Johnson's face whilst Trump rambles on is nothing other than "the **** I am going to have to clean up when he is done talking" is obvious and priceless.

And he got a chance to kick Massie as well and call out grandstanders like Roy.

Trump tends to do well with these "pep" talks even though some feelings may be hurt.

Karoline Leavitt looks strong and beautiful as always.
Jeeper79
How long do you want to ignore this user?
YouBet said:

WestAustinAg said:

Lower taxes spur growth. Growth powers the economy. And the government brings in hundreds of billions more in tax revenue even though tax rates are lower. This happens every time.

We need really smart tax cuts (or just continuing them instead of stopping them). And we need to massively cut government expenses. Massively. Like 3 or 4 trillion a year. Starting right now.


Sure but we aren't making any spending cuts so the tax cuts will have to drum up $3-4T out of thin air to cover all of the increased spending. Cutting taxes for food servers and people on overtime is not going to bring in $3-4T.
The targeted tax cuts for tips are just another hand out / wrinkle in the tax code that puts us farther away from an optimal solution.
TRM
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Moody's downgraded the rating on US credit and too much spending.
TRM
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Are you going to call out the grandstanders in the SALT Caucus?
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TRM said:

Moody's downgraded the rating on US credit and too much spending.
The idea of Moody giving a credit rating on US debt is beyond comical.

I am sure they will offer Bessent a "repair your credit" program for an ongoing fee.

All credit reporting agencies are a ****ing scam and those who own and run them should be in jail.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TRM said:

Are you going to call out the grandstanders in the SALT Caucus?
Sure. Lawley should be called out as should Stefanik and a few others. Hawley should be called out over medicare. There is a SNAP caucus as well.

But since I did not defend any of those folks, then I fail to see the relevance to my comments on Roy. Chip earned his target and he will ultimately enjoy the fruit of his antics.

If he continues to be a hold out, he will be another tossed aside relic. Given his DC lifer resume, I imagine he winds up in lobbying or in the bureaucracy.
Jeeper79
How long do you want to ignore this user?
flown-the-coop said:

TRM said:

Moody's downgraded the rating on US credit and too much spending.
The idea of Moody giving a credit rating on US debt is beyond comical.

I am sure they will offer Bessent a "repair your credit" program for an ongoing fee.

All credit reporting agencies are a ****ing scam and those who own and run them should be in jail.
Oh brother…
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jeeper79 said:

flown-the-coop said:

TRM said:

Moody's downgraded the rating on US credit and too much spending.
The idea of Moody giving a credit rating on US debt is beyond comical.

I am sure they will offer Bessent a "repair your credit" program for an ongoing fee.

All credit reporting agencies are a ****ing scam and those who own and run them should be in jail.
Oh brother…
I take it you have never dealt with any of these agencies?
samurai_science
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Roy is the only one worth a damn and I hope this bill fails
TRM
How long do you want to ignore this user?
flown-the-coop said:

Jeeper79 said:

flown-the-coop said:

TRM said:

Moody's downgraded the rating on US credit and too much spending.
The idea of Moody giving a credit rating on US debt is beyond comical.

I am sure they will offer Bessent a "repair your credit" program for an ongoing fee.

All credit reporting agencies are a ****ing scam and those who own and run them should be in jail.
Oh brother…
I take it you have never dealt with any of these agencies?
I deal with them every month, how about you?
TRM
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Same. It's a big, beautiful bill of crap.
Windy City Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

I take it you have never dealt with any of these agencies?

He is just pointing out your degree of ignorance regarding consumer credit agencies like TransUnion, Experian, and Fair Isaac (FICO) and corporate credit research and ratings bureaus like Moody's, S&P, Kroll, Fitch, Morningstar DBRS, etc.

Big insurers, pension funds, and institutional investors rely heavily (for better or worse) on credit agencies for scoring the degree of default risk in their bond holdings. There was a time to be angry at them . . .2008 . . . but in this case they are just stating the obvious and anyone that claims bias in this conclusion is either ignorant or delusional.
BigRobSA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
samurai_science said:

Roy is the only one worth a damn and I hope this bill fails
Him, Cruz, Lee, Paul, Kennedy ...there are like 6 or 7 conservatives in all of Congress. Everyone else is worthless and should be primaried.
BigRobSA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Windy City Ag said:

Quote:

I take it you have never dealt with any of these agencies?

He is just pointing out your degree of ignorance regarding consumer credit agencies like TransUnion, Experian, and Fair Isaac (FICO) and corporate credit research and ratings bureaus like Moody's, S&P, Kroll, Morningstar DBRS, etc.

Big insurers, pension funds, and institutional investors rely heavily (for better or worse) on credit agencies for scoring the degree of default risk in their bond holdings. There was a time to be angry at them . . .2008 . . . but in this case they are just stating the obvious and anyone that claims bias in this conclusion is either ignorant or delusional.
Porque no los dos?
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Windy City Ag said:

Quote:

I take it you have never dealt with any of these agencies?

He is just pointing out your degree of ignorance regarding consumer credit agencies like TransUnion, Experian, and Fair Isaac (FICO) and corporate credit research and ratings bureaus like Moody's, S&P, Kroll, Morningstar DBRS, etc.

Big insurers, pension funds, and institutional investors rely heavily (for better or worse) on credit agencies for scoring the degree of default risk in their bond holdings. There was a time to be angry at them . . .2008 . . . but in this case they are just stating the obvious and anyone that claims bias in this conclusion is either ignorant or delusional.


So since 2008 they cleaned up their act and now only reserve their hot takes to downgrade the US sovereign credit rating? Why now?

I think it's funny folks continue to put faith and trust in such flawed institutions. They are not independent, they are all beholden to the same geopolitical forces to start, hold, or change a narrative. They all make money serving the same industries and institutions they supposedly serve. Fine, but that doesn't make them independent in any sense of the word.

Next time a see a commercial for Charmin #1 rated toilet paper I can be assured a totally independent rating agency like Moody's was behind my choice of what to wipe my arse with. Or, I can know that their report is worth even less than my Charmin.

flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BigRobSA said:

samurai_science said:

Roy is the only one worth a damn and I hope this bill fails
Him, Cruz, Lee, Paul, Kennedy ...there are like 6 or 7 conservatives in all of Congress. Everyone else is worthless and should be primaried.


BigRob Republicans / Conservatives could win about a 15%-20% representation on a national stage and would never reach a majority in almost any state, any election cycle.

Want to be libertarian level irrelevant, then latch on to the Roys, Cruz's, Lees, Pauls… and you may want to check your notes on Kennedy. He's closer to the Irish clan from Massachusetts than BigRob conservative ideals.
Malibu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
WestAustinAg said:

Lower taxes spur growth. Growth powers the economy. And the government brings in hundreds of billions more in tax revenue even though tax rates are lower. This happens every time.

We need really smart tax cuts (or just continuing them instead of stopping them). And we need to massively cut government expenses. Massively. Like 3 or 4 trillion a year. Starting right now.
If you know the appropriate lowered tax rate that will definitely increase real government revenue, please share it with the class . I'm not a higher taxes ideologue, but our current situation demands that we continue to at least maintain current revenue. We can't shink revenue for ideological reasons and hope to pay off our debt. That's an argument for the future when we are on a sustainable path.
Jeeper79
How long do you want to ignore this user?
flown-the-coop said:

Windy City Ag said:

Quote:

I take it you have never dealt with any of these agencies?

He is just pointing out your degree of ignorance regarding consumer credit agencies like TransUnion, Experian, and Fair Isaac (FICO) and corporate credit research and ratings bureaus like Moody's, S&P, Kroll, Morningstar DBRS, etc.

Big insurers, pension funds, and institutional investors rely heavily (for better or worse) on credit agencies for scoring the degree of default risk in their bond holdings. There was a time to be angry at them . . .2008 . . . but in this case they are just stating the obvious and anyone that claims bias in this conclusion is either ignorant or delusional.


So since 2008 they cleaned up their act and now only reserve their hot takes to downgrade the US sovereign credit rating? Why now?

I think it's funny folks continue to put faith and trust in such flawed institutions. They are not independent, they are all beholden to the same geopolitical forces to start, hold, or change a narrative. They all make money serving the same industries and institutions they supposedly serve. Fine, but that doesn't make them independent in any sense of the word.

Next time a see a commercial for Charmin #1 rated toilet paper I can be assured a totally independent rating agency like Moody's was behind my choice of what to wipe my arse with. Or, I can know that their report is worth even less than my Charmin.


It is literally Moody's job to call these sorts of things. It is their product. If you owned a company, would you intentionally put out garbage? No. Because it would be shooting yourself in the face. And if you do it long enough, you lose the whole business.

You say they should be in jail. For what? Saying something you didn't like?
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Meeting on Capitol Hill over. Mike Johnson still looks like he could use a productive bowel movement as Trump addresses the press.

Trump indicates it was a good meeting. Poor reporter asks about reports that Trump said he was "losing his patience", and he lit into him in great Trump fashion. Told the reporter to go back to his source, if there really was one, and call them a liar.

He's pretty turnt up, so maybe the meeting did not go as well as he says. Mike is off camera, hopefully they are getting him a diaper or a drink. He looked miserable.
samurai_science
How long do you want to ignore this user?
flown-the-coop said:

Meeting on Capitol Hill over. Mike Johnson still looks like he could use a productive bowel movement as Trump addresses the press.

Trump indicates it was a good meeting. Poor reporter asks about reports that Trump said he was "losing his patience", and he lit into him in great Trump fashion. Told the reporter to go back to his source, if there really was one, and call them a liar.

He's pretty turnt up, so maybe the meeting did not go as well as he says. Mike is off camera, hopefully they are getting him a diaper or a drink. He looked miserable.


Mike knows the bill will be a failure so he's stressing
samurai_science
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Malibu said:

WestAustinAg said:

Lower taxes spur growth. Growth powers the economy. And the government brings in hundreds of billions more in tax revenue even though tax rates are lower. This happens every time.

We need really smart tax cuts (or just continuing them instead of stopping them). And we need to massively cut government expenses. Massively. Like 3 or 4 trillion a year. Starting right now.
If you know the appropriate lowered tax rate that will definitely increase real government revenue, please share it with the class . I'm not a higher taxes ideologue, but our current situation demands that we continue to at least maintain current revenue. We can't shink revenue for ideological reasons and hope to pay off our debt. That's an argument for the future when we are on a sustainable path.


Paying off the debt will never happen because it requires major cuts
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jeeper79 said:

flown-the-coop said:

Windy City Ag said:

Quote:

I take it you have never dealt with any of these agencies?

He is just pointing out your degree of ignorance regarding consumer credit agencies like TransUnion, Experian, and Fair Isaac (FICO) and corporate credit research and ratings bureaus like Moody's, S&P, Kroll, Morningstar DBRS, etc.

Big insurers, pension funds, and institutional investors rely heavily (for better or worse) on credit agencies for scoring the degree of default risk in their bond holdings. There was a time to be angry at them . . .2008 . . . but in this case they are just stating the obvious and anyone that claims bias in this conclusion is either ignorant or delusional.


So since 2008 they cleaned up their act and now only reserve their hot takes to downgrade the US sovereign credit rating? Why now?

I think it's funny folks continue to put faith and trust in such flawed institutions. They are not independent, they are all beholden to the same geopolitical forces to start, hold, or change a narrative. They all make money serving the same industries and institutions they supposedly serve. Fine, but that doesn't make them independent in any sense of the word.

Next time a see a commercial for Charmin #1 rated toilet paper I can be assured a totally independent rating agency like Moody's was behind my choice of what to wipe my arse with. Or, I can know that their report is worth even less than my Charmin.


It is literally Moody's job to call these sorts of things. It is their product. If you owned a company, would you intentionally put out garbage? No. Because it would be shooting yourself in the face. And if you do it long enough, you lose the whole business.

You say they should be in jail. For what? Saying something you didn't like?


It's their job? They are paid by the people who are in the same industry. Do people think Dan Campbell's football reviews are above reproach?

They should be in jail for their role in 2008. A mere $1 billion in penalties didn't seem to clean up their act.

Literally no point in their needing to adjust their rating on the US at this point. Those here claiming the debt ceiling is crashing on us, the debt ceiling is crashing on us may cheer this action by Moody's on. But all it is done is provide fodder to lib talking heads and create additional costs for Americans.

So no, I don't like their meddling here. It feels and almost certainly is politically motivated.
Windy City Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

So since 2008 they cleaned up their act and now only reserve their hot takes to downgrade the US sovereign credit rating? Why now?

That is not the point . . .you just didn't understand what the firm did and was conflating it with the credit score for individuals.

But the why now is fairly obvious. The fiscal situation for the U.S. Government (already worrisome pre-COVID) declined significantly initially during the Trump first admin primarily due to the COVID Response and did not get any better through the Biden years. The current path of deficit spending is totally unsustainable and neither Congress nor the White House wants to do anything about it.





The deficit numbers are growing exponentially at this point. What is required is a return to prudent fiscal policies in Washington. What the Big Beautiful Bill implies is even more red ink and further strain on our ability to borrow.

https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2025/5/19/house-reconciliation-bill-budget-economic-and-distributional-effects-may-19-2025

Quote:

PWBM now estimates that conventional primary deficits will increase by $3,175 billion ($3.2 trillion) over the 10-year budget window.


 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.