If the current CR continues Biden level spending, does that mean the BBB didn't cut spending?

[nikcers]

Nope. If cuts don't happen within a year, they don't count. Promises that another president and Congress in the future will have the courage to let cuts take effect don't count toward the current president and Congress who make that promise and lack the courage to oversee the cuts in his own tenure. Because we all know that those future cuts aren't actually ever going to happen either.

It has before. Trump cut the Afghanistan war and that was 50 billion a year.

It carried on past his presidency.

Trump also has closed the borders which exponentially cuts spending that would happen otherwise even beyond his presidency.

They aren't coming over the border illegally and pumping out 9 kids so they can collect taxpayer benefits because the border is closed.

 

[Invisible Man]

It has before. Trump cut the Afghanistan war and that was 50 billion a year.

It carried on past his presidency.

Trump also has closed the borders which exponentially cuts spending that would happen otherwise even beyond his presidency.

They aren't coming over the border illegally and pumping out 9 kids so they can collect taxpayer benefits because the border is closed.

Where's the year that federal spending was less than the previous year?

 

[nikcers]

The country didn't shut down in 2020 because of Obamacare. It shut down because the guy who was President in 2020 decided to shut it down.

What about all the other countries that shut down?

Trump shut down China?

You know what countries didn't shut down mostly?

Places where countries had healthier people and better healthcare systems that could survive a pandemic.

He is also fixing the other big problem and thats supply chains. Since China shut down and there wasn't a domestic supply of medicine production our country couldn't survive a pandemic.

Trump is doing a lot of that now and its better late than never.

We have a new world order when it comes to trade and globalization where China dominates and can shut off your country by depriving it of a critical supply chain that world is over.

China threatened to do that with critical minerals and Trump forced them to back down with tarrifs.

 

[Invisible Man]

What about all the other countries that shut down?

I'll let Trump off the hook for those.

 

[nikcers]

Where's the year that federal spending was less than the previous year?

If you compare 2024 spending to 2025 the increase comes to around 82 Billion.

While Biden increased spending by 266 billion between 2023 and 2024.

Source:


In fiscal year (FY) 2024, the U.S. spent approximately $2.589 trillion, and in FY 2025, it spent an estimated $2.671 trillion, on all federal programs except net interest on the debt, Social Security, and Medicare.

This represents an increase of approximately $82 billion in this category.

Compare that to Biden now.

In fiscal year (FY) 2023, the U.S. spent approximately $2.323 trillion, and in FY 2024, it spent approximately $2.589 trillion, on all federal programs except net interest on the debt, Medicare, Social Security.

This represents an increase of approximately $266 billion in this category of spending between the two fiscal years.

 

[Invisible Man]

If you compare 2024 spending to 2025 the increase comes to around 82 Billion.

Hold up now. Earlier you weren't counting 2025 as a Trump year, which actually was a fair point. But you can't turn around now and count that in Trump's favor if you think that increasing spending 82 Billion dollars over what it already was in 2024 is some kind of laudable achievement.

 

[nikcers]

Hold up now. Earlier you weren't counting 2025 as a Trump year, which actually was a fair point. But you can't turn around now and count that in Trump's favor if you think that increasing spending 82 Billion dollars over what it already was in 2024 is some kind of laudable achievement.

My whole argument was that the democrats would be spending more if they were in charge.

Based on 2024 spending vs 2025 spending that would be the case.

Since Biden increased spending significantly more year over year.

This is assuming that democrats only spent 266 billion more if they won the election.

The big one was the Inflation Reduction Act Spending. ( Green New Deal )

The Republicans when they got elected in 2025 fought to cap that spending which the democrats were not going to cap.

New estimates suggest the total cost of that bill could exceed $1 trillion if it were left uncapped.

 

[oyarde]

What if I told you that spending isnt ever going down until it collapses , what if I told you fifty senators wouldnt vote to cut 160 billion in spending even if they knew the US would collapse in seven years if they didnt cut ea yr. This is the world you live in.

 

[nikcers]

What if I told you that spending isnt ever going down until it collapses , what if I told you fifty senators wouldnt vote o cut 160 bullin is spending even if they knew the US would collapse in seven years if they didnt cut ea yr. This is the world you live in.

The US economy won't collapse at current government spending levels because the US for the first time in decades has a favorable environment for global investment.

Trump not only lowered the corporate tax rates so that they are competive- he made the tax rate permanent- he is also also securing tremendous amounts of investment from other countries the likes in which no one has ever seen before.

 

[oyarde]

The US economy won't collapse at current government spending levels because the US for the first time in decades has a favorable environment for global investment.

Trump not only lowered the corporate tax rates so that they are competive- he made the tax rate permanent- he is also also securing tremendous amounts of investment from other countries the likes in which no one has ever seen before.

Federal Reserve note system will surely collapse in near future . Will it be 10,14,15 or 20 yrs ? MIT says about 14 yrs , which seems plausable because Id say 10 or no more than 20

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Ah yes, the massive spending cuts...

One, Big Beautiful Bill (The Mega-Bill)

 

[Invisible Man]

My whole argument was that the democrats would be spending more if they were in charge.

Maybe, maybe not. Republicans love to say that. But they have a habit of not living up to it.

But regardless, you're moving the goalposts. Spending less than some hypothetical alternative where spending increases even faster than it is now is not the same thing as cutting spending.

 

[Snowball]

Federal Reserve note system will surely collapse in near future . Will it be 10,14,15 or 20 yrs ? MIT says about 14 yrs , which seems plausable because Id say 10 or no more than 20

Things have changed with technology. There are no absolute economic invisible hands or forces that operate independently. This goes for both positive and negative phenomena. We live in a hyper-monitored, hyper-managed financial ecosystem today. It is a fungible and tweakable technosphere with programmable data, instataneous results and micro-managed performative elements. All accompished with computerized oversight which, at times, is modified by actual humans. Mostly those humans are in the private sector, rarely are they in the public sector. These two sectors overlap with supportive functions that interlink the various governmental decision-making centres with the hardware of software established by the corporations and banks.

It's nothing at all like the olden days, where economic factors wielded overarching powers and abilities. Today, it's fixed. Nothing can make it "collapse" unless there is a natural disaster or major war, or intentional changes made to its composition and legal frameworks.

 

[Invisible Man]

Federal Reserve note system will surely collapse in near future . Will it be 10,14,15 or 20 yrs ? MIT says about 14 yrs , which seems plausable because Id say 10 or no more than 20

What study from MIT are you referring to?

 

[acptulsa]

It's nothing at all like the olden days, where economic factors wielded overarching powers and abilities. Today, it's fixed.

Don't be silly. The Panic of 1907 was engineered by bankers who were in the mood to do some shorting and snap up some bargains. In fact, most "panics" were, including 1929. And 1929 would have been just another profit taking opportunity for insiders, except that reality changed the game with the drought in the Breadbasket of the World, because finance is nothing when there's not enough food.

Nothing can make it "collapse" unless there is a natural disaster or major war, or intentional changes made to its composition and legal frameworks.

Don't be silly. The FRN will collapse if the government keeps borrowing at this rate. And they can't hammer silver back down, even though they are clearly trying. There was no bag if tricks that could keep Madoff going. Reality muscles in eventually -- every single time.

 

[Snowball]

Don't be silly. The Panic of 1907 was engineered by bankers who were in the mood to do some shorting and snap up some bargains. In fact, most "panics" were, including 1929. And 1929 would have been just another profit taking opportunity for insiders, except that reality changed the game with the drought in the Breadbasket of the World, because finance is nothing when there's not enough food.



Don't be silly. The FRN will collapse if the government keeps borrowing at this rate. And they can't hammer silver back down, even though they are clearly trying. There was no bag if tricks that could keep Madoff going. Reality muscles in eventually -- every single time.

I disagree and stand by my comment. No need to convince you otherwise, all I ask is readers to think.
There is nothing "silly" about what I wrote. Neither are they trying to hammer the price of silver back down.
That's another topic anyway. This isn't 1907 or 1929, either.

 

[nikcers]

Maybe, maybe not. Republicans love to say that. But they have a habit of not living up to it.

But regardless, you're moving the goalposts. Spending less than some hypothetical alternative where spending increases even faster than it is now is not the same thing as cutting spending.

I'm not imagining an alternative that's what the alternative wants.

Even Rand Paul lays it out that way when he does interviews.

He says the democrats want to spend more, the Republicans wants to spend less than the democrats, but I want to spend even less than the the republicans.

He has repeated that in all the interviews.

The argument I am saying is that if the Republicans don't get the votes that doesn't make it to where another option appears to spend less. That just means the democrats get the votes to spend more than the republicans.

That's how you get things like the green new deal scam that would cost trillions of dollars.

The Republican party fought to cap that spending to end the green new deal scam.

 

[Invisible Man]

I'm not imagining an alternative that's what the alternative wants.

Anybody want to take a stab at translating this into English?

 

[nikcers]

Anybody want to take a stab at translating this into English?

You keep pretending like the democrats don't have the government shutdown just so they can spend more on Obamacare subsidies. Thats literally what their demands are.

If they had the votes they would be spending more. The evidence is right there.

 

[acptulsa]

Anybody want to take a stab at translating this into English?

No.

Can you believe it's still talking like Republicans spend less in 2025, after all the money Trump has given Pfizer, Israel and his new Space Force toy?