Thank You Tiny and the ECCIE Fiscal Hawks

Excuse me, counselor. Didn't I make it clear that Republicans of recent years haven't been remotely serious about fiscal sustainability? Why yes, I certainly did!





Indeed! That's why it was so amusing to see Tiny, of all people, called out in the thread title and blasted for supposedly supporting anything in the way of massive debt increases.

How about a realty check? We're in the perilous fiscal situation we see today because of the grotesquely irresponsible spending binges of 2021-2022, when Democrats increased the trend baseline of annual deficit spending from an already overly bloated $1 trillion (in 2019) to a run rate of $2 trillion five years later -- and for no good reason, since the covid pandemic had faded away long before. And they succeeded in baking it in so that the big increases in federal spending would be painful to reverse without deep-sixing our overly-stimulated, debt-fueled economy. Therefore, the Biden/Pelosi/Schumer triumvirate set the nation on a course to add $10 trillion to our national debt over the upcoming 10-year period, relative to what would have been the case had they acted appropriately and done very little in the way of cramming through a bunch of fattening menu items on progressives' fantasy lists. (Actually, more than that, since no one expects the deficit to do anything but climb in the absence of meaningful action by congress.)

But I'll say this in your defense, Blackman. I mistakenly thought you were an enthusiastic partisan who almost certainly voted Biden/Harris in 2020. But now I realize that cannot possibly have been so, or by the reasoning expressed in your opening posts you would be kicking yourself mercilessly for supporting the creation of $10 trillion in new debt.

And then you would surely have posted a mea culpa!

Unfortunately, it will take a lot more than something celled a "Big, Beautiful Bill" that has support of only one party to even begin to reverse course. That would require leadership (from both parties!) and bipartisan compromise such as we used to see decades ago. (Nowadays? Good luck with that!) Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

Snick!

What I don’t buy into is the silliness that folks like Tiny seems to have swallowed whole - that republicans have ever been fiscally responsible. Well they are when they demagogue the issue when it’s democrats in charge, but that’s disingenuous at best and political theater at worst. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

then you don't know the GOP. republicans were fiscally conservative till the early 70's when the true cost of Vietnam came home to pay for and the vast social programs of the Civil right Act had kicked in the GOP gave up arguing over all the spending as long as they got what mattered to them, mainly things like Military spending and anything pro business.



the Libertarian movement is in part old school GOP fiscal conservatism along with some liberal constructs.



to say Republicans never cared about spending is false

Ok Waco, I’ll take it maybe Republicans in the 60s cared about money but that’d be before my lifetime so I’ll qualify my statement, in my lifetime Republicans haven’t been fiscally responsible.

You happy now?

Ok Waco, I’ll take it maybe Republicans in the 60s cared about money but that’d be before my lifetime so I’ll qualify my statement, in my lifetime Republicans haven’t been fiscally responsible.

You happy now?

Ok Waco, I’ll take it maybe Republicans in the 60s cared about money but that’d be before my lifetime so I’ll qualify my statement, in my lifetime Republicans haven’t been fiscally responsible.

You happy now? Originally Posted by 1blackman1

To avoid getting bogged down you may just want to read the red text below. Please note that North Dakota, Alaska, Wyoming, Utah, and Tennessee are ALL red states. 4 of the 5 don't lean Republican. Unfortunately Sam Altman's trying to train my bitch to be a progressive but I'm on it.

I can tell her to go ahead and prepare the Excel table. Just say the word. It won't be pretty for your side though.

Tiny: Please compare budget deficits and debt run by blue (Democrat) states, cities and counties to red states, cities and counties.

ChatGPT:

Here’s a clean, apples-to-apples way to think about it, plus what the best data shows right now.

How I compared “blue” vs “red”

States: I treat a state as “blue” or “red” by who won it in the 2024 presidential election (official FEC tally).
FEC.gov

What we’re comparing: (1) Annual balance (do recurring revenues cover recurring expenses?) and (2) Long-term obligations (bonded debt + pensions/OPEB on an accrual basis). States must generally balance annual budgets, so the bigger party differences show up in long-term liabilities, not in reported cash-basis “deficits.”
Tax Policy Center

States (bottom line)

Using full-accrual, audited data, Truth in Accounting’s 2024 report finds 27 states lacked enough assets to cover their bills; the top five “Sunshine” states (largest taxpayer surpluses) were North Dakota, Alaska, Wyoming, Utah, and Tennessee—4 of 5 typically Republican-leaning. The bottom five “Sinkhole” states are consistently New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Hawaii—all typically Democratic-leaning.
truthinaccounting.org
Morrissey Goodale
Kiowa County Press

Credit market view: Many AAA-rated states are red (e.g., Utah, Texas, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Virginia, South Dakota), though some blue jurisdictions (e.g., Delaware, Washington’s Moody’s Aaa) also sit near the top—so it’s not purely partisan. Credit ratings reflect debt loads, reserves, and economic structure.
Wikipedia

Context on annual balances and cushions: Across 2008-2022, the median state took in 103.6% of expenses (surplus on average). After the post-COVID revenue boom, states are now downsizing FY25 budgets but still carry historically high rainy-day reserves. These trends are broad-based, not party-specific.
Pew Charitable Trusts
+2
Pew Charitable Trusts
+2
Higher Logic Download

What drives the pattern? The big driver of blue-state “Sinkholes” is legacy pension and retiree-health (OPEB) promises in older, union-heavy systems (e.g., IL, NJ, CT, MA, HI). Several red, resource-rich states (ND, WY, AK, UT, TN) benefit from volatile severance tax bases and comparatively reformed pension systems.
Equable
Reason Foundation

Large cities

Among the 75 biggest cities (TIA’s 2024/2025 studies), most run taxpayer burdens once pensions/OPEB are counted. Notably:

Best (“Sunshine”): Washington, DC; Irvine, CA; Plano, TX; Lincoln, NE; Oklahoma City, OK. (This list mixes Democratic and Republican governance.)

Worst (“Sinkhole”): New York City; Chicago; Honolulu; Philadelphia; Portland. (Predominantly Democratic).
truthinaccounting.org

TIA’s 2025 city update underscores pensions/OPEB as the majority of non-capital debt; at FY2023, the 75 cities had $621.7B in total obligations against $321B in available assets.
truthinaccounting.org

Counties

County data are spottier, but the Reason Foundation aggregates ACFRs for the largest counties:

Highest total unfunded retirement benefits: Los Angeles County, Cook County (Chicago), and Philadelphia—all deep-blue electorates. Several counties (often smaller or faster-growing suburban ones) report negative employee-benefit debt (surpluses).
Reason Foundation

A fair summary

States: On accrual measures that include pensions/OPEB, blue states, on average, carry higher long-term burdens; many red states show surpluses. Still, there are meaningful exceptions (e.g., blue Delaware/Washington enjoy top credit marks; some red states face pressures when commodity revenues dip).
Wikipedia
pewtrusts.org

Cities & counties: The worst burdens cluster in large, older, Democratic-run metros (NYC, Chicago, Philadelphia), consistent with legacy benefits and aging infrastructure. But there are blue exceptions in good shape (e.g., DC near the top) and red metros with burdens (e.g., several big Texas cities).
truthinaccounting.org
Governing

Annual “deficits”: Because of balanced-budget rules, year-to-year gaps are limited for both parties; the major differences show up in accrual liabilities and credit quality rather than cash-basis deficits.
Tax Policy Center

If you want the full breakdown

I can assemble a table that classifies all 50 states by 2024 result (red/blue) and lists each one’s TIA taxpayer surplus/burden, pension/OPEB share, and credit ratings, plus a second table for the 75 largest cities. Just say the word and I’ll produce it in a downloadable spreadsheet.

I actually agree with you, if you were just referring to the bozos in Washington, D.C. But a fairer statement would be the political class from both parties hasn't been fiscally responsible, except for Congressional Republicans and Clinton during his second term.

To avoid getting bogged down you may just want to read the red text below. Please note that North Dakota, Alaska, Wyoming, Utah, and Tennessee are ALL red states. 4 of the 5 don't lean Republican. Unfortunately Sam Altman's trying to train my bitch to be a progressive but I'm on it.

I can tell her to go ahead and prepare the Excel table. Just say the word. It won't be pretty for your side though.

Tiny: Please compare budget deficits and debt run by blue (Democrat) states, cities and counties to red states, cities and counties.

ChatGPT:

Here’s a clean, apples-to-apples way to think about it, plus what the best data shows right now.

How I compared “blue” vs “red”

States: I treat a state as “blue” or “red” by who won it in the 2024 presidential election (official FEC tally).
FEC.gov

What we’re comparing: (1) Annual balance (do recurring revenues cover recurring expenses?) and (2) Long-term obligations (bonded debt + pensions/OPEB on an accrual basis). States must generally balance annual budgets, so the bigger party differences show up in long-term liabilities, not in reported cash-basis “deficits.”
Tax Policy Center

States (bottom line)

Using full-accrual, audited data, Truth in Accounting’s 2024 report finds 27 states lacked enough assets to cover their bills; the top five “Sunshine” states (largest taxpayer surpluses) were North Dakota, Alaska, Wyoming, Utah, and Tennessee—4 of 5 typically Republican-leaning. The bottom five “Sinkhole” states are consistently New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Hawaii—all typically Democratic-leaning.
truthinaccounting.org
Morrissey Goodale
Kiowa County Press

Credit market view: Many AAA-rated states are red (e.g., Utah, Texas, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Virginia, South Dakota), though some blue jurisdictions (e.g., Delaware, Washington’s Moody’s Aaa) also sit near the top—so it’s not purely partisan. Credit ratings reflect debt loads, reserves, and economic structure.
Wikipedia

Context on annual balances and cushions: Across 2008-2022, the median state took in 103.6% of expenses (surplus on average). After the post-COVID revenue boom, states are now downsizing FY25 budgets but still carry historically high rainy-day reserves. These trends are broad-based, not party-specific.
Pew Charitable Trusts
+2
Pew Charitable Trusts
+2
Higher Logic Download

What drives the pattern? The big driver of blue-state “Sinkholes” is legacy pension and retiree-health (OPEB) promises in older, union-heavy systems (e.g., IL, NJ, CT, MA, HI). Several red, resource-rich states (ND, WY, AK, UT, TN) benefit from volatile severance tax bases and comparatively reformed pension systems.
Equable
Reason Foundation

Large cities

Among the 75 biggest cities (TIA’s 2024/2025 studies), most run taxpayer burdens once pensions/OPEB are counted. Notably:

Best (“Sunshine”): Washington, DC; Irvine, CA; Plano, TX; Lincoln, NE; Oklahoma City, OK. (This list mixes Democratic and Republican governance.)

Worst (“Sinkhole”): New York City; Chicago; Honolulu; Philadelphia; Portland. (Predominantly Democratic).
truthinaccounting.org

TIA’s 2025 city update underscores pensions/OPEB as the majority of non-capital debt; at FY2023, the 75 cities had $621.7B in total obligations against $321B in available assets.
truthinaccounting.org

Counties

County data are spottier, but the Reason Foundation aggregates ACFRs for the largest counties:

Highest total unfunded retirement benefits: Los Angeles County, Cook County (Chicago), and Philadelphia—all deep-blue electorates. Several counties (often smaller or faster-growing suburban ones) report negative employee-benefit debt (surpluses).
Reason Foundation

A fair summary

States: On accrual measures that include pensions/OPEB, blue states, on average, carry higher long-term burdens; many red states show surpluses. Still, there are meaningful exceptions (e.g., blue Delaware/Washington enjoy top credit marks; some red states face pressures when commodity revenues dip).
Wikipedia
pewtrusts.org

Cities & counties: The worst burdens cluster in large, older, Democratic-run metros (NYC, Chicago, Philadelphia), consistent with legacy benefits and aging infrastructure. But there are blue exceptions in good shape (e.g., DC near the top) and red metros with burdens (e.g., several big Texas cities).
truthinaccounting.org
Governing

Annual “deficits”: Because of balanced-budget rules, year-to-year gaps are limited for both parties; the major differences show up in accrual liabilities and credit quality rather than cash-basis deficits.
Tax Policy Center

If you want the full breakdown

I can assemble a table that classifies all 50 states by 2024 result (red/blue) and lists each one’s TIA taxpayer surplus/burden, pension/OPEB share, and credit ratings, plus a second table for the 75 largest cities. Just say the word and I’ll produce it in a downloadable spreadsheet.

I actually agree with you, if you were just referring to the bozos in Washington, D.C. But a fairer statement would be the political class from both parties hasn't been fiscally responsible, except for Congressional Republicans and Clinton during his second term. Originally Posted by Tiny

o.u.c.h.

How goes Trump’s economy?

I think by the maggies silence, you got your answer.

I think by the maggies silence, you got your answer. Originally Posted by Precious_b

Addressed in another thread,

https://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p...31&postcount=5

If you mean during his second term, it's too early to tell.

And Trump doesn't really have a lot of influence over the economy compared to other factors at play (Fed policy, the business cycle, changes in technology, etc.) Although his tariffs may have been a major fuck up.

How goes Trump’s economy? Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Well, it's still hard to say. Although a number of metrics point to a significant slowdown, it still seems to be "muddling through" -- at least for now. As Tiny noted above, the biggest question may be the extent to which tariff imposition impedes growth, and we probably won't be able to quantify that for a while.

But since the subject of this thread is derivatively the "Big Beautiful Bill," and particularly the question of whether one can reasonably be blamed for supporting those who created it, I'll answer with a lusty "hell yes!"

The "big, beautiful bill" is weak tea, when what's needed is a strong cup of espresso!

A better and more stimulative plan would have been to re-run the 2021-2022 playbook, adjusted for inflation.

To that end, American Rescue Plan 2.0 would be a good start. There's been quite a bit of inflation over the last four years, though, so it ought to be right-sized to somewhere in the $2.5 trillion range.

Then we could move on to a redux of the Inflation Reduction Act. Be sure to reinstate every "green new deal" provision, too. All of this spending eventually finds its way into the NIPA columns and gets counted as GDP! What's not to like?

Worried about too much new debt creation? Deficits, schmeficits! Our federal public debt is now creeping up on $30 trillion, but who would really care if it ballooned to $40 trillion? What's a paltry $10 trillion among friends?

If the electorate would have been wise enough to elect Kamala and to team her up with sizeable majorities in both the House and Senate, all of this would be in place today.

Come on, Mr. Trump. Come on, congress. Go big or go home! There's an economy aching to be juiced to the max and a community of investors eager to see asset prices further boosted!

Let's get the party rolling!

Well, it's still hard to say. Although a number of metrics point to a significant slowdown, it still seems to be "muddling through" -- at least for now. As Tiny noted above, the biggest question may be the extent to which tariff imposition impedes growth, and we probably won't be able to quantify that for a while.

But since the subject of this thread is derivatively the "Big Beautiful Bill," and particularly the question of whether one can reasonably be blamed for supporting those who created it, I'll answer with a lusty "hell yes!"

The "big, beautiful bill" is weak tea, when what's needed is a strong cup of espresso!

A better and more stimulative plan would have been to re-run the 2021-2022 playbook, adjusted for inflation.

To that end, American Rescue Plan 2.0 would be a good start. There's been quite a bit of inflation over the last four years, though, so it ought to be right-sized to somewhere in the $2.5 trillion range.

Then we could move on to a redux of the Inflation Reduction Act. Be sure to reinstate every "green new deal" provision, too. All of this spending eventually finds its way into the NIPA columns and gets counted as GDP! What's not to like?

Worried about too much new debt creation? Deficits, schmeficits! Our federal public debt is now creeping up on $30 trillion, but who would really care if it ballooned to $40 trillion? What's a paltry $10 trillion among friends?

If the electorate would have been wise enough to elect Kamala and to team her up with sizeable majorities in both the House and Senate, all of this would be in place today.

Come on, Mr. Trump. Come on, congress. Go big or go home! There's an economy aching to be juiced to the max and a community of investors eager to see asset prices further boosted!

Let's get the party rolling! Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

Well, that's Blackman's state's motto, Let the Good Times Roll! He should be behind that 100%, or at least he was back in 2022 when inflation was 8% and the workingman was getting farther behind the eight ball. (That is, when inflation adjusted wages were down.)

I've criticized Trump's tariffs more than anyone on this board. And I still think they suck. However, the effect on the economy hasn't been as negative as I thought it would be by now. And they're set to raise close to $300 billion a year in revenue if the courts don't strike them down.

Anyway, if you combine the tariffs with the Big Beautiful Bill, the deficits generated by Trump's policies are almost certainly smaller than what the Democrats would have come up with under a government led by Kamala Harris, Hakeem Jeffries, and Chuck Schumer.

$300 Billion?

Tariff revenues have been growing for months, and the latest data shows that the U.S. has collected $133.7 billion from them as of Aug. 21 2025.

Long way to go.

Meanwhile
For the current fiscal year 2025, the Bipartisan Policy Center reports a cumulative deficit of $1.6 trillion as of the end of July.

Well, that's Blackman's state's motto, Let the Good Times Roll! He should be behind that 100%, or at least he was back in 2022 when inflation was 8% and the workingman was getting farther behind the eight ball. (That is, when inflation adjusted wages were down.)

I've criticized Trump's tariffs more than anyone on this board. And I still think they suck. However, the effect on the economy hasn't been as negative as I thought it would be by now. And they're set to raise close to $300 billion a year in revenue if the courts don't strike them down.

Anyway, if you combine the tariffs with the Big Beautiful Bill, the deficits generated by Trump's policies are almost certainly smaller than what the Democrats would have come up with under a government led by Kamala Harris, Hakeem Jeffries, and Chuck Schumer. Originally Posted by Tiny

From whom have these $300b supposedly been (or will be) raised. If it’s from consumers that’s a consumption tax which just raises the costs of goods. If it’s from the retailer and wholesalers who eat some of the tariff, then that's a tax on businesses. I thought you Republican types were anti-tax, particularly on businesses. Doesn't that essentially negate the 2017 and 2025 tax reductions on businesses that you, Lusty and TC brag added so much wealth across the board to the economy (though I'd say it made the rich richer and did little for the middle class - but that's a different discussion).

If we were just gonna tax business then we could have simply not lowered their taxes.

...Although a number of metrics point to a significant slowdown, it still seems to be "muddling through" -- at least for now... Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

... exactly how does one account for the TRILLIONS of dollars, invested by others, into locating factories into our country, account for in the age of AI? Think very carefully before you respond.

... exactly how does one account for the TRILLIONS of dollars, invested by others, into locating factories into our country, account for in the age of AI? Think very carefully before you respond. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

AI datacenters don’t manufacture anything physical. They create data from data.

The components of these datacenters are rows of rack mounted servers whose parts are primarily manufactured overseas.

However the electrical infrastructure required to supply them might be manufactured here locally. And the fuel to power them might be produced here.

But that really has very little to do with the OBBBA. Spending was not cut nearly enough, Income tax revenues were not raised at all, and a lot of those savings are now being invested into a huge expansion of the immigration system that is almost entirely funding the capture and deportation process but almost none of the court process.