Post New

A reminder:
Trumps Tariffs are a regressive tax. He's The Anti-Robin Hood.

Trump's tariffs impose a tax rate on low-income households that's roughly TRIPLE that on high-income folks. That's not the way taxes are supposed to work.

Trump takes from the poor and gives to the rich. Sweet Oligarchy!

https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/state-us-tarif...

Adam Smith knew what was up...
"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." ~Adam Smith

The way "taxes are supposed to work" is purely a political question to be determined by the federal and state legistlatures through the political process, subject to whatever restrictions are imposed by the federal and state constitutions.

Let's really crank up taxes on things that are just no good for people. That would serve to both collect revenue and to discourage people from buying things that are no good for them.

Some examples:

Alcohol
Cigarettes, vapes
Lottery tickets/sports gambling etc.
Junk food, ultra processed food, convenience foods, foods with a lot of sugar or high fructose corn syrup added.
Some would also add fossil fuels to this list, those would be ProGlibs mostly.
Some would also add guns and other weapons to this list.

Now, it has to be admitted that such taxes for the most part are extremely regressive as poor people spend a disproportionate amount of their income and income substitutes such as SNAP benefits and WIC on unhealthy food, cigarettes, liquor, lottery tickets, and so on.

Please don't come back with excuses such as poor people are stupid and don't have autonomy to be able to make their own choices and are in food deserts (caused by blue city politicians allowing crime by poor people to run rampant).

If you think poor people are too stupid and lack autonomy and self-discipline to make good choices, then you should be totally in favor of making "sin taxes" painful to the point of being confiscatory.

Lowering taxes on the poor would just encourage their unhealthy habits.

We wouldn't want that now, would we? Not if we are good little ProGlibs.

Here's a book rec. I have not finished this yet, I'll go out on a limb and recommend it anyway.

The Second Estate: How the Tax Code Made an American Aristocracy by Ray D. Madoff looks at our tax code and how it benefits the rich at the expense of the poor and formerly middle class. Madoff is a law professor at Boston College specializing in tax law. So she teachers her students how to advise their clients how to pay the least in taxes by taking advantage of the myriad loopholes in the code. She knows this is unfair and the book points out the inequities in the system. I am not far enough in to see if she offers any ideas of remedies. I won't go into the history behind the book's title, but it should be a warning to those benefiting from the current tax laws.

Here's a book rec. I have not finished this yet, I'll go out on a limb and recommend it anyway.
The Second Estate: How the Tax Code Made an American Aristocracy by Ray D. Madoff...PF

Thank you for the recommendation, looks interesting, I have requested a copy from my library!

"In The Second Estate, Madoff shows that the US tax system itself has, over time, been stripped and reconstituted in such a way that wealthy people avoid taxation altogether.
America’s wealthy do more than just pay less than their share; they remove themselves from the tax system entirely."

Let's really crank up taxes on things that are just no good for people. That would serve to both collect revenue and to discourage people from buying things that are no good for them.

Michigan has been doing that, at an increasing rate. The state lottery started in the early 70s. The real wave has been over the last 25 years, when casino gambling started. A few years ago, on line casino and sports gambling was legalized. More recently, weed was legalized. Each time, the (L&Ses) say the revenue from these industries is "for the schools", while they take money from general revenue away from school funding, to cover another "JC" tax cut. The latest one is repeal of the 6% sales tax on motor fuel, and a "revenue neutral" increase in the fuel tax, so there is more money for road maintenance (Michigan is notorious for bad roads. Before the current Gov came in, per capita road funding was half that of surrounding states). So how did they make up for the lost sales tax revenue? They added an additional 24% tax on weed. At some point, they will tax weed so much people will go back to the black market, and the state's revenue will drop.

Steve

Thank you for the recommendation, looks interesting...

Yes, I agree, looks quite interesting! One reviewer writes:

"You’d think reading about the tax code would be a snoozer, but this book has so many fascinating and revelatory anecdotes that it’s a real page turner, believe it or not. I learned so much, got so angry at the source of the ease with which billionaires can bypass paying taxes, and am pleased that the book not only outlined the problem in such a riveting way but also suggested viable, common- sense solutions..."

https://www.amazon.com/Second-Estate-Code-American...

Pete

Now, it has to be admitted that such taxes for the most part are extremely regressive as poor people spend a disproportionate amount of their income and income substitutes such as SNAP benefits and WIC on unhealthy food, cigarettes, liquor, lottery tickets, and so on.

Please don't come back with excuses such as poor people are stupid and don't have autonomy to be able to make their own choices and are in food deserts (caused by blue city politicians allowing crime by poor people to run rampant).


No, I'd just have to say that YOU are extremely thick at this point not to check on your ?@#%$ beliefs.

AI <--- And since I read the papers while I was in CA I am already familiar with this.

"No, SNAP and WIC benefits cannot be used for unhealthy foods like cigarettes, liquor, and lottery tickets. Both programs prohibit the purchase of alcohol, tobacco, non-food items, and hot or prepared foods. Some states are also starting to ban other processed foods like soda, candy, and energy drinks with the benefits, although this is still an evolving area."

I'm not copying the lists.

ME: I remember reading Frederick Douglas, who criticized poor black folks for spending money unwisely on expensive food and compared them to poor white folks who spent there money better and got more for each dollar.

I specifically said "income and income substitutes".

Learn to read correctly before getting your underoos in a twist.

My home is taxed each November at a portion of its imputed value. The real value sometimes goes up and sometimes regresses, but the "assessed" value always falls under that. And yet the tax bill is higher every year on the unrealized gain in value of my asset.

I see no reason that the unrealized gains in assets owned by billionaires cannot be fairly taxed.

fd

I specifically said "income and income substitutes". ~OldMarco000

I told you, quiet, quiet Piggy.

Am I correct in assuming it's ok to talk to people that way?

You are not understanding and dodging marco.

Marco, you said this:

Now, it has to be admitted that such taxes for the most part are extremely regressive as poor people spend a disproportionate amount of their income and income substitutes such as SNAP benefits and WIC on unhealthy food, cigarettes, liquor, lottery tickets, and so on.

This isn't true, and is a myth that you keep repeating.

"No, SNAP and WIC benefits cannot be used for unhealthy foods like cigarettes, liquor, and lottery tickets. Both programs prohibit the purchase of alcohol, tobacco, non-food items, and hot or prepared foods. Some states are also starting to ban other processed foods like soda, candy, and energy drinks with the benefits, although this is still an evolving area."

Once again, you need to check your belief systems as they include false items, when you keep repeating them, you become a liar. Nobody needs that on a discussion board. We need people who can adjust their beliefs to reality, and not people who try and adjust reality to their beliefs. After a while, no one will pay attention to you, some already ridicule you, if you keep repeating false beliefs.

You can't read, can you.

You can't read, can you.

You are not worth talking to again. Ploink.

Once again, you need to check your belief systems as they include false items, when you keep repeating them, you become a liar. Nobody needs that on a discussion board. We need people who can adjust their beliefs to reality, and not people who try and adjust reality to their beliefs. After a while, no one will pay attention to you, some already ridicule you, if you keep repeating false beliefs.

Precisely why I’ve stopped reading m100 and D1, definitely birds of a feather (eerily so). LM and BHM I still pay attention to. Echotabaa/sheeple is… challenging.

No, SNAP and WIC benefits cannot be used for unhealthy foods like cigarettes, liquor, and lottery tickets. Both programs prohibit the purchase of alcohol, tobacco, non-food items, and hot or prepared foods.

I'll take a chance and step in here. SNAP is not 100% of a person's food budget, typically. Dollars not used for basics, like meat and potatoes, because they were paid for with a SNAP card, can be used for liquor and smokes. If the people did not have a SNAP card, then they would need to pay dollars for the meat and potatoes, and have none left for liquor and smokes. I have seen that go down many times in the store, back when people used physical food stamps: one pile of actual food, paid with stamps, then a pile of liquor and smokes, for which they pay cash.

Some years ago, there was a pizzeria concept that tried to cheat SNAP. SNAP cannot be used for prepared food, like take out pizza. The concept was the pizza was made to order, but not baked, which made it "groceries", not "prepared food". The customer was supposed to take it home, and bake it themselves. There used to be one of those stores where I live. I read the few on-line reviews. Fell over laffing when one person complained "the pizza was way undercooked". He clearly did not understand the concept was to cheat SNAP.

Steve

Quick note:
Every dollar spent (invested) on food stamps generates $1.50-$2.00 in economic activity.

Every dollar sent to bail out Argentina generates NOTHING.

https://ers.usda.gov/sites/default/files/_laserfic...

Every dollar sent to bail out Argentina generates NOTHING.

It generated an ass-saving payday for one speculator.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/09/trump...

However, Bessent’s announcement had massive economic benefits for one American: billionaire hedge fund manager Rob Citrone, who has placed large bets on the future of the Argentine economy. Citrone, the co-founder of Discovery Capital Management, is also a friend and former colleague of Bessent—a fact that has not been previously reported in US media outlets. Citrone, by his own account, helped make Bessent very wealthy.

Since Javier Milei, a right-wing populist, became president of Argentina in December 2023, Citrone has invested heavily in Argentina. Citrone has bought Argentine debt and purchased equity in numerous Argentine companies that are closely tied to the performance of the overall economy. Due to Argentina’s massive debt load and chaotic economic history—in 2023, Argentina’s inflation rate was over 200 percent—Citrone purchased Argentine bonds with an interest rate of nearly 20 percent. (Citrone has declined to detail exactly “how much of the $2.8 billion he manages is invested” in Argentina.)

I'll take a chance and step in here.

Good story. :) In any government dole program I expect 5% fraud, waste, and abuse. If it's higher than that, that's too much and we have to look at it. Story. I'd give a bum in front of the grocery store a buck or two every time I'd see him. Sometimes I'd talk to him, I'd get the skinny on what was going at his level. He knew everyone, and every once in a while I'd see him tweaked out. I'd tell him, hey if you tweak out don't do it in front of people who give you money. He was taking care of a lady who had mental illness, some protein was eating her brain and she'd act drunk sometimes but was sober. She got food stamps and between that and his panhandling they got fed.

I didn't see him for a while and then he tapped me on the shoulder in the grocery store. I turned around to see a clean shaven, not scruffy guy who introduced me to his beautiful wife who was six months pregnant. He had a job. Two years later he was back in front of the store panhandling again. He had stopped working and in order to make ends meet she went back to Kentucky to live with her parents and was a UPS driver. He was back to being a bum. He couldn't handle the responsibilities of being a Dad, paying the bills, showing up for work every day, etc., etc.. I lost some respect for him because he didn't seem to care about his kid.

All the people at that level get some snap and that may be the best food they eat. I'm really not that concerned if now and then they do some drugs, drink some alcohol, smoke some cigarettes, eat some cheetos. There's a lot of mental illness at that level by default. Life isn't great down there, it doesn't have to be bleak, but if someone works all week, has SNAP, and that allows him a couple of tall boys, or a pizza, that's great. I don't understand people who focus on those tall boys, or focus on the fraud and want to destroy these programs.

Every dollar spent on food, generally, generates from $1.50-3.00 in economic activity.

SNAP generates no additional economic activity then if the money had been left in the hands of the taxpayers.

In any government dole program I expect 5% fraud, waste, and abuse. If it's higher than that, that's too much and we have to look at it.

I knew I was taking a chance at being misunderstood if I entered this discussion. The point is that cash can be repurposed. SNAP can, indeed, enable the purchase of liquor and smokes, by allowing people to use the cash that otherwise would have gone to food, for non-qualifying goods instead. I don't see any practical way to prevent that, other than having a minder follow each SNAP recipient around 24/7 to make sure they never buy any liquor or smokes, or lottery tickets, or any of the myriad other things Proles can throw their money away on.

He couldn't handle the responsibilities of being a Dad, paying the bills, showing up for work every day, etc., etc..

Another thought crosses my mind, in the case of people like that, who refuse to shoulder any responsibility for anything: put them in a labor camp. There, they would be provided with housing, food, medical care, and issued clothing, but little to no money. Each day, they would be rousted out of bed, and minute to minute, told where to go, and what to do. Do we, as a society, want to go there?

There is a good line in "The Sand Pebbles". As Candice Bergen, and the minister she is traveling with, watch Jake walk away from the steamer they took up river. she asks the minister why people like Jake join the Navy. The minister says something along the lines of "as long as they do as they are told, and stay out of trouble, the Navy takes care of them".

Steve

SNAP generates no additional economic activity then if the money had been left in the hands of the taxpayers.

Or, perhaps a more apt comparison, given US Federal deficits have soared past $1T/year, "anyone can look prosperous, as long as someone is willing to lend more to them".

Steve

SNAP generates no additional economic activity then if the money had been left in the hands of the taxpayers. ~MAGABOT

Wrong.

"By investing directly in the health and well-being of low-income children, SNAP provides lasting gains not only for the children who participate, but for the nation.
One study estimated that every SNAP dollar invested in children returns $62 in value over their lifetimes (due to a range of benefits including improved educational outcomes, higher earnings in adulthood,
increased life expectancy, and increased government tax revenue). SNAP should be seen as an investment that will deliver continuing benefits for the life trajectories of children and the broader economy."

"Food assistance acts as an income boost, allowing people to spend money that would otherwise have been used for food on health-related activities. Infants and children in families receiving food assistance from SNAP are more likely to see a doctor for periodic check-ups. Older adults participating in SNAP are more likely to take the full dosage of prescription medications because they have enough income to afford food and medicine, compared to low-income older adults not participating in SNAP, who may have to make difficult choices about stretching their medication to afford enough food. SNAP may also help low-income older adults live independently in their communities and avoid hospitalization. Low-income adults participating in SNAP incur $1,400 — nearly 25 percent — less in medical care costs than low-income non-participants."

"The economic multiplier of SNAP is often higher than that of cash transfers because SNAP spending more directly targets essential food consumption among low-income households that have a high marginal propensity to consume immediately. This targeting results in more pronounced ripple effects throughout the economy, especially in agriculture and food-related industries."

https://www.cbpp.org/blog/snap-food-assistance-is-...

https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2019/july/qua...

https://microeconomicinsights.org/how-do-american-...

The obvious solution which we can now test in Mamdani's NYC regime starting Jan. 1, 2026, is the following (the pilot project in NYC):

SNAP beneficiaries don't get an EBT card.

Instead, they get a monthly credit to their account with NYC's chain of government-owned and operated-grocery stores.

Said groceries will have special SNAP sections which won't have unhealthy foods or convenience foods.

The SNAP shoppers can only spend their store credits on food from the healthy sections.

The checkout scanners will reject any stray items which do not belong but that the SNAP beneficiary "mistakenly" tried to buy.

There will be scales in the front of the store as well as tape measures and a nurse. Each SNAP beneficiary will be weighed and measured. If their BMI exceeds 25, they will forfeit their SNAP benefits for that month.

If you are going to play those games, then from those alleged SNAP "benefits" you wish to conjure up, you then have to substract the huge cost to society and the economy of all the SNAP kids who grow up to be drug dealers, murderers, muggers, and felons. That would include the imputed and actual cost of all the damage they cause to the rest of society.

You won't do that because you're a ProGlib.

Marco, where did you study economics?

If you are going to play those games, then from those alleged SNAP "benefits" you wish to conjure up, you then have to substract the huge cost to society and the economy of all the SNAP kids who grow up to be drug dealers, murderers, muggers, and felons. That would include the imputed and actual cost of all the damage they cause to the rest of society. ~OldMarco000

I did not "conjure them up" I provided links to studies.
Do you have any evidence to refute what I provided or are you just making shit up again?

"If you are going to play those games, then from those alleged SNAP "benefits" you wish to conjure up, you then have to substract the huge cost to society and the economy of all the SNAP kids who grow up to be drug dealers, murderers, muggers, and felons. That would include the imputed and actual cost of all the damage they cause to the rest of society." - Marco the Clown

Making shit up isn't going to help you with your credibility problem. People already think you are an idiot because you regularly say things that are obviously not true and are just fictions in your deranged mind.

I knew I was taking a chance at being misunderstood if I entered this discussion.

Yes, I understood your point. I think most people are familiar with it, and it's a good point.

AI
The concept of a subsidy freeing up money to be spent elsewhere is best described by the
income effect and the broader concept of resource reallocation.

My point is that it doesn't bother me if it does that. Some people focus on that and resent the hell out of it.

As for the bum I knew, I think that's a more common tale than we think. He wasn't an addict, just every once in a while did drugs, he said so and didn't like people doing drugs around kids, but he abandoned his kid. Go figure. His wife was trying to get him to come to Tennessee. I think he'd escape labor camp. I can understand mentally ill bums, but he wasn't mentally ill that I could tell. It's rough down there, and many of them know they are one paycheck from living on the streets. They need safety net, capitalism is not fun at the bottom rung.

I think he'd escape labor camp.

When I started that post, I wrote "forced labor camp", then I took the "forced" out. The concept is, for people who can't handle any sort of responsibility, live in the camp, be taken care of, and work, or strike out on your own, with no government assistance programs.

Ever see "The Man Who Invented Christmas"? I quite enjoy it. After seeing it in the theater when it first came out, I have borrowed the DVD from the local library, and watched it again. The point is, the film shows Dickens' experiences that informed his story.

THE MAN WHO INVENTED CHRISTMAS | Official Trailer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nx3ctBjG6yI

Steve...."Are there no prisons? And the union workhouses? Are they still in operation?"

"If you are going to play those games, then from those alleged SNAP "benefits" you wish to conjure up, you then have to substract the huge cost to society and the economy of all the SNAP kids who grow up to be drug dealers, murderers, muggers, and felons. That would include the imputed and actual cost of all the damage they cause to the rest of society." - Marco the Clown

So Marco is admitting kids die if they don't get SNAP, and that without SNao all the criminals would die, i.e., not grow up?

Hmmm- sift

The program known today as SNAP began with a pilot program launched in May 1939 during the Great Depression. This early version ended in 1943 but was revived as a pilot program in 1961 by President John F. Kennedy. The program then became permanent with the passage of the Food Stamp Act of 1964.

No correlation that I can see.

When I started that post, I wrote "forced labor camp", then I took the "forced" out. The concept is, for people who can't handle any sort of responsibility, live in the camp, be taken care of, and work, or strike out on your own, with no government assistance programs.

Well, after slavery we had peonage, and CCCP? during the depression. England's labor camps weren't forced, IIRC, you could leave. I'd have to see what happened to that bum. It was disappointing though. Peonage was just slavery of another kind, and it continued. I used to think working in prison was the way to go, but I've read what it can become. We have to be wary of that.

I like the trailer. I read about how it took a bit, but finally caught on. I loved the old Christmas Story I watched as a kid. Tiny Tim. :) Good times.

Not at all. The original post I had responded to claimed a multiplier to the economy from SNAP benefits of approximately 100% - 200%.

I merely pointed out that it's the same for any food dollars spent by anyone so has nothing at all to do with SNAP per se.

Then either the initial person, or perhaps some other brain dead feces thrower, chimes in saying SNAP actually generates $62 of value per dollar spent, apparently by including alleged positive effects years or decades out.

If you're going to include the good consequences years or decades out you have to subtract the bad. But not knowing how arithmetic works is classic ProGlib thinking.

That's why mamdani is going to provide free bus rides to all new yorkers next year. Because it's free. Just Like SNAP.

...you then have to substract the huge cost to society and the economy of all the SNAP kids who grow up to be drug dealers, murderers, muggers, and felons. That would include the imputed and actual cost of all the damage they cause to the rest of society.

I hope you're not suggesting we should starve children so they never have the chance to "grow up to be drug dealers, murderers, muggers, and felons."

If you are going to play those games, then from those alleged SNAP "benefits" you wish to conjure up, you then have to substract the huge cost to society and the economy of all the SNAP kids who grow up to be drug dealers, murderers, muggers, and felons. That would include the imputed and actual cost of all the damage they cause to the rest of society.

As opposed to what? The felon in the White House who grew up with millions?

When all is said and done, the costs of all the SNAP recipients who grow up to be bad actors will pale in comparison to the costs--monetary and otherwise--that are being generated by our corrupt Divider-In-Chief. His endless lying and fraud, sanctioning of political violence, lack of adherence to the historic norms of human decency and governing that have enabled our country to become great and occupy the position of respected world leader, disruption of world order, engendering a lack of trust among our allies, damage to our educational and health systems, lack of environmental concern, the list is virtually endless...is biting us in many ways and will continue to do so for a long time, even after he is gone.

Of course, if he didn't have supporters, he'd be just another schmuck of a reality TV star, which is where he belongs.

I'm not suggesting anything other than learning basic arithmetic before making arguments for a policy based on alleged monetary value created for society.

I know that's a real toughie for ProGlibs.


Note that the original poster specifically made a monetary argument, which is what I was responding to you.

The original poster was making an argument that SNAP was fiscally beneficial as it generated a positive multiple in the economy of every SNAP dollar spent. I pointed out that about the same multiplier applies to all food dollars, not just SNAP, which makes perfect sense. The food doesn't know which dollars are being spent on it. There's no reason $5of SNAP spent on hamburger meat should have a larger multiplier effect than $5 of non SNAP dollars.

That was really my only point, but for some reasons few of you decided to indulge in yet another unjustified rage-gasm.

Or, perhaps a more apt comparison, given US Federal deficits have soared past $1T/year, "anyone can look prosperous, as long as someone is willing to lend more to them".

Steve

-------------------

Yep. When someone claims the US is the richest country on earth (usually to help support some cockamamie spending proposal), they need to be reminded that ours is a false prosperity since it depends on the seemingly unlimited borrowing capacity of the USA.

One study estimated that every SNAP dollar invested in children returns $62 in value over their lifetimes - Bansky

----------------

With a 62X return, we should double the number of SNAP dollars being invested each year, until we retire the US Debt.

There will be scales in the front of the store as well as tape measures and a nurse. Each SNAP beneficiary will be weighed and measured. If their BMI exceeds 25, they will forfeit their SNAP benefits for that month.

Horseshit.

That’s some REAL commie shit right there, marco.

ours is a false prosperity since it depends on the seemingly unlimited borrowing capacity of the USA.

Yah, take a look at the Japanese-

"Japan's government debt-to-GDP ratio is significantly higher than the United States', at over (240%) compared to the U.S.'s roughly (120%) to (125\%). While Japan's ratio is the highest in the world, the U.S. ratio is still a subject of concern due to different factors

Wouldn't I like to know what those factors are? Because until I do and can develop and judge on those factors I don't think we're near a limit and need to worry, but we don't want to increase the rate greatly. What are the projections for the next 10 years?

Well, after slavery we had peonage, and CCCP? during the depression.

Isn't "CCCP" Russian for the official name of the Soviet Union? My dad's younger brother was in the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) during the 30s. Being in the CCC may have been akin to enlistment, as he received a discharge form when he left the CCC. That form always cracked me up, because it had "honorable" typed in, above the printed text about being discharged. That version is probably now a crazy valuable collectable, as I tossed it, along with a lot of other papers, when I moved in 96. During an antique car show in Greenfield Village, they have a CCC set, with reenactors who present information on the program, and display artifacts. They have several of the discharge forms on display, but none like my uncle's, with "honorable" typed in.

The thing about prison labor is the labor can't walk away if they are maltreated. In Plan Steve, people can leave the camp any time they want, but they don't receive any assistance, like SNAP or Medicaid, on the outside. It might be similar to the "protected" workshops that my cousin was in, from time to time, as he was too slow mentally, and too low on ambition, to hold a job on the outside, on merit. People from the wrong sort of family may have not developed personal habits like getting up, and going somewhere, on a schedule. I have read of automakers, making an effort to recruit workers in the inner city, giving them an alarm clock, because they had never had one before, because they did not have a reason to get up at a particular time.

But, as I said earlier, do we, as a society, want to go there?

I loved the old Christmas Story I watched as a kid.

I think the version I grew up watching was the 1951 version, with Alastair Sim. With several viewings of the Mr Magoo musical cartoon version, from 62.

Steve

My dad's younger brother was in the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) during the 30s.

Here’s a factoid about the CCC…

Roosevelt saw the war stormclouds brewing, but politically, his hands were tied regarding all out preparation.

The CCC was part of that preparation- in addition to the civilian infrastructure they built.

First clue- the CCC was run by the army. Much of the discipline and organization paralleled the armed forces.

The regular army was bare bones- understaffed.


With the expansion that WW2 demanded- a significant proportion of the earliest inductees were from the CCC. In fact, they soon formed the backbone of non-commissioned officers- corporals and sergeants.

Arguably, without the CCC, we wouldn’t have been able to meet the moment as soon as we did.


Just one more thing to thank Roosevelt for.

Isn't "CCCP" Russian for the official name of the Soviet Union?

That's why the question mark next to it. :) Late at night. There's a CCC museum near me. Yes, peonage lasted into the 40s, and that AZ sheriff revived chain gangs for a bit, but they died around the same time. We aren't that advanced and have to drag the country forward slowly.

I like the B&W version. :) Gotta go.

I loved the old Christmas Story I watched as a kid. Tiny Tim. :) Good times. ~Lapsody

So did I, still do!

"But you were always a good man of business, Jacob, faltered Scrooge.
Business!' cried Marley's Ghost,
Mankind was my business; the common welfare was my business!
Charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all my business.
The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!" ~Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol

I don't think debt financing necessarily results in a false prosperity.

One of the things that has always perplexed me is why the total national debt (around $38-39 Trillion right now I believe) isn't balanced against national ASSETS. I'm not sure if the assets should be only government assets or included privately-held assets. But normally, balance sheet includes debt vs. assets, not just the debt.

I mean, things like our Army, Navy, real estate/national parks owned by the federal government, and lots of other things, are probably difficult to value. But they do have a value, and I'm sure it's a lot.

The annual budget is running around $7 trillion and annual debt service is running around $1 trillion so around 14% of the budget is devoted to debt service. The trend isn't good because I believe the debt is going up around $1.78 trillion a year or somewhere around that.

We also have trillions in off balance sheet unfunded liabilities like future Medicare costs.

In the 1990's we had a few years of balanced budgets which can be attributed to raising taxes on wealthier people, cutting expenses, plus a booming economy (the rise of the internet).

I think the 2028 Presidential contest will be a very interesting year because one of the budgetary issues that is coming up pretty quickly is the Social Security shortfall predicted for 2032 or 2033. The trust fund runs out and payments in will only serve to allow maybe 75% of SS benefits to be paid going forward if adjustments are not made.

So that issue should be squarely on the table (although it's been kicking around for decades with nothing done about it).

If not addressed by whoever the President and Congress is in 2028/2030, it will HAVE to be addressed by whoever is elected in 2032. There are a number of solutions but it's too politically touchy so no one wants to do anything about it because they can kick the can down the road a few more years.

How we are able to handle the coming social security crisis will tell us a lot about how we may be able to handle longer term issues such as the general budget deficit.

Civilian Conservation Corps, maybe? (CCC)

ours is a false prosperity since it depends on the seemingly unlimited borrowing capacity of the USA.

Sweet Jesus ... BHM and I are in agreement on something.

The thesis has a lot of branches. And it's not just 'our prospertiy that's false. The entire globe is suffering the long term consequences and cost of pollution, climate change, economic inequity, overpopulation being exploited by greedy motherfuckers like Trump, Putin, and a growing list of billionaires, super-billionaires, and now... a megalomanical trillionaire who wetdreams his own army of robots.

The latest insult to the planet is the rapid development of energy and water hungry data centers for AI and Crytposcamming; fields that are just two more ways wealth gets concentrated in fewer and fewer pots.

Yes, peonage lasted into the 40s, and that AZ sheriff revived chain gangs for a bit,

In principle, I have no problem with chain gangs. Chain gangs are alive and well. A friend of mine works part time as a bull for prisoner work parties for the district court in Livonia. One day, at work, I saw a van with, iirc, "Wayne County Sheriff" on it, pull up to the warehouse, and guys in red jumpsuits pile out of the van to do some sort of work. There was a big flap, some years ago. Michigan wanted to use chain gangs to clean and maintain highway right of ways. There was a big row by the employees of the various county road commissions, that prisoners would be "taking jobs away from honest people", So that chain gang proposal went nowhere. But Michigan is notorious for underfunding road maintenance, so the right of ways go untended.

Steve

Sano,

Your post is counter-factual.

The increase in global per capita GDP, adjusted for inflation, from 1994-2024 has been $11,202 to $21,268.

This includes and is despite the GFC, Covid, and all the other crises, wars, and so forth during this 30 year period.

I understand that ProGlib rage-gasms are fun (although perhaps making your phone screen sticky), but really not the best way of actually solving any of the many problems you listed.

Haven't followed this back and forth too closely, but it's a fact that in blue states they allow restaurants to

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/blue-states-blast...

California expanded its program statewide, for example, in 2021 that allowed restaurants to accept CalFresh benefits via SNAP at a swath of top fast-food chains stretching from McDonald's to Domino's Pizza to Jack in the Box.

Ernst's office found that from June 2023 to May 2025, more than $475 million in taxpayer dollars funded Restaurant Meals Program meals at fast-food establishments. During that same time period, $524 million in taxpayer funds were spent through the Restaurant Meals Program overall, meaning California accounted for more than 90% of the nation's total Restaurant Meals Program funds from June 2023 to May 2025, according to the office.

"The ‘N’ in SNAP stands for nutrition not nuggets with a side of fries," Ernst told Fox News Digital. "I wish I was McRibbing you but $250 million per year at the drive-through is no joke and a serious waste of tax dollars. I hate to be the one to say McSCUSE ME, but something needs to be done because taxpayers are not lovin’ it."


Joni Ernst has introduced legislation about it
https://x.com/ExxAlerts/status/1991510364153082050...

One of the things that has always perplexed me is why the total national debt (around $38-39 Trillion right now I believe) isn't balanced against national ASSETS.

iirc, Trump proposed just that, monetizing the assets, clear cutting the forests, strip mining the land. Remember his blathering about a "sovereign wealth fund"? Critics at the time noted, words to the effect "sovereign wealth funds are usually used by countries that have a large surplus, not Trillions of debt". My hunch is the monetized assets would be used to line Trump's pockets, one way, or another.

Steve

In principle, I have no problem with chain gangs

I have a problem with the chains. I don't mind of someone works, but I don't want to find capitalists working hand in hand with prisons creating goods at a profit because the potential for corruption is too large. We've already had the kids for cash scandal, and something similar can happen again. Some states were allocating county resources based on the number of prison cells a county had. Then the number of inmates dropped.

California expanded its program statewide, for example, in 2021 that allowed restaurants to accept CalFresh benefits via SNAP at a swath of top fast-food chains stretching from McDonald's to Domino's Pizza to Jack in the Box.

This doesn't bother me. It's food, and it used to be called Food Stamps. Good eye though.

Post New

Retirement Investing FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.