Bride of Chuckie says stupid shit every day

1) Senators Johnson and Paul are not staffers in the CBO.  Johnson is on both the budget and finance (specifically fiscal responsibility and economic growth) committees, so presumably he understands deficits.

2) Staffer financial contributions are not a measure of budget assessment accuracy.

3) If staffers in the CBO are not contributing to Republicans, that should tell you something about Republican economic policies.

UPDATE 06:06 pm:

Is the honeymoon over, too?

Did she not read it before she voted?

UPDATE 06/04/2025:

Apparently, they simply don't read the bills they vote on.

Also...

It seems there's a contest going on between devotion to Trump or desire for Musk money.

It's all funny money anyway

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Ron Wyden making a common mistake

When will people understand that Trump is only in it for himself and the right-winger cabal that is set up around him and has gotten cabinet positions have been hell bent on destroying the government for years.  Who was it who said the object was to shrink the government so small they could drown it in a bathtub?  Oh, yeah.  Grover Norquist.  Whatever happened to that asshole? 

Surprise, surprise!

When it comes to how President Trump's tax cuts have affected the average American, all taxpayers need to do is check their bank accounts, Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist told FOX Business' Ashley Webster on Monday.

"Look at your taxes this year, last year, the year before, and you can figure out how much your tax cut was and what you would lose if the Democrats win the presidency and the Senate," Norquist said on "Varney & Co."

  Fox Business News

Let me know how that shakes out for you.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:

So much winning

While both revenue and spending have increased in the first three months of fiscal 2020, spending has gone up at a faster rate.

Treasury has estimated that the deficit will exceed $1 trillion in fiscal 2020. The only other years when the U.S. has posted a budget deficit exceeding $1 trillion came in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.

Deficits have gone up during President Trump's administration, following passage of his 2017 tax-cut law as well as bipartisan agreements to increase spending on defense and domestic programs.

[...]

“It makes no sense that we are continuing to pile on debt in a growing economy," said Michael Peterson, CEO of the Peterson Foundation, a group dedicated to tackling the U.S.'s long-term fiscal challenges. "This is the time when we are supposed to be preparing for the future. Managing our debt is essential to making sure we have the ongoing resources to address our greatest challenges, from infrastructure to climate to national security.

  The Hill

But if you're a Republican who wants to destroy the US government, things are going swimmingly.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

But the economy is great

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Incompetent. Unfit. Impeach.

Twice on Thursday, President Trump made comments that conveyed a remarkable lack of familiarity with basic aspects of the American economy.

[...]

“You mentioned all the economic indicators are going up,” a reporter asked. “Why, then, is the — are U.S. deficits and the financial debt increasing at a time when the economy —”

Trump jumped in.

“Well, the trade deals won’t kick in for a while,” he said. “You know, number one, the USMCA” — the revised version of NAFTA that Trump’s administration negotiated with Canada and Mexico — “hasn’t even been approved yet. It has to go before Congress and get approved. Now, it should get approved quickly.”

Before NAFTA, Trump said, “we had huge surpluses with Mexico. With NAFTA, we have huge deficits. We lose $100 billion a year on trade with Mexico. Does that sound good? And this has been going on for many years. So I stopped it. I stopped it a lot.”

  WaPo

I stopped it a lot.

Trump took a question that’s obviously about the federal budget deficit and gave an answer that dealt with the country’s trade deficits. Both are deficits, sure, but they relate to each other in about the same way that a tuning fork relates to a dinner fork.

[...]

We could chalk this up to Trump mishearing the question were it not for the interview he gave to the New York Times a few hours later. Trump was asked if the tariffs he had imposed on China might remain in effect indefinitely even if the United States and China reached a broader trade agreement, as Trump hoped.

“Yeah, sure,” Trump replied. “We have 25 percent now on $50 billion. And by the way . . . that’s a lot of money pouring into our Treasury, you know. We never made 5 cents with China. We’re getting, right now, 25 percent on $50 billion. And then I was putting 25 percent at a later date, which date came and went — 25 percent or $200 billion.”

“Yeah, sure,” Trump replied. “We have 25 percent now on $50 billion. And by the way . . . that’s a lot of money pouring into our Treasury, you know. We never made 5 cents with China. We’re getting, right now, 25 percent on $50 billion. And then I was putting 25 percent at a later date, which date came and went — 25 percent or $200 billion.”

[...]

But, as The Washington Post’s Heather Long pointed out when Trump suggested in August that tariffs would pay down the debt, it’s not the Chinese paying those tariffs — it’s the person or company doing the importing.

[...]

All of this is admittedly better than the really bizarre comment Trump made during an interview with Fox News’s Sean Hannity in October 2017. Hannity tossed up a softball about the economy, and Trump took a swing.

“The country — we took it over and owed over $20 trillion,” Trump said, referring to the national debt. “As you know, the last eight years, they borrowed more than it did in the whole history of our country. So they borrowed more than $10 trillion, right? And yet we picked up $5.2 trillion just in the stock market. Possibly picked up the whole thing in terms of the first nine months, in terms of value. So you could say, in one sense, we’re really increasing values. And maybe, in a sense, we’re reducing debt.”

There is no sense in which rising stock market valuations reduces the federal debt. The way the federal debt is reduced is either by cutting federal spending or increasing federal revenue, including through raising taxes. As president, Trump has made overtures at the former and rejected the latter, meaning that the nearly $20 trillion debt Trump inherited has now topped $21.5 trillion.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Good job, Donnie

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Where's the bragging tweet about the deficit?

The federal deficit hit $895 billion in the first 11 months of fiscal 2018, an increase of $222 billion, or 32 percent, over the same period the previous year, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

The nonpartisan CBO reported that the central drivers of the increasing deficit were the Republican tax law and the bipartisan agreement to increase spending. As a result, revenue only rose 1 percent, failing to keep up with a 7 percent surge in spending, it added.

Revenue from individual and payroll taxes was up some $105 billion, or 4 percent, while corporate taxes fell $71 billion, or 30 percent.

[...]

Earlier analysis from CBO projected that deficits would near $1 trillion in 2019 and surpass that amount the following year.

  The Hill

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

So much winning

The federal deficit jumped 20 percent in the first 10 months of the 2018 fiscal year, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported Wednesday.

Spending outpaced revenue between the beginning of the fiscal year, on Oct. 1, and July by $682 billion, $116 billion more than over the same period in the last fiscal year.

The rising deficit is largely the result of the tax cuts President Trump signed into law at the end of last year, as well as a bipartisan agreement to boost spending, according to CBO.

Tax revenues from individuals rose, even as revenues from corporate taxes dropped.

  The Hill

Might be a problem for the 2018 GOP hopes.

MAGA

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

We are not at war

Perhaps this is like the refusal to claim we are at war in any number of countries that we're bombing or aiding bombing - if we don't call it a war, then it's not one.

Or perhaps this is just Trump being Trump.

So...today's news?

President Donald Trump ordered his chief trade negotiator to consider imposing tariffs on an additional $100 billion of Chinese products Thursday, in a dramatic escalation of his trade war with China.

[...]

"Rather than remedy its misconduct, China has chosen to harm our farmers and manufacturers," Trump said in a statement Thursday evening.

  Chicago Tribune

And he also said that trade wars are easy to win.

We've seen before why the deficit is not necessarily a bad thing. And now we're seeing why starting a trade war with China is a really stupid idea.

Many in the business community are urging Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping to reach a settlement before the tariffs go into effect, and Republican lawmakers have been urging the U.S. president to back down.

Don't hold your breath.

Funny he doesn't mention that, after the uproar over his aluminum tariff announcement, he was forced to exempt most every country other than China.

"Hopefully the president is just blowing off steam again, but if he's even half-serious, this is nuts," Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., said in a statement Thursday night. "The president has no actual plan to win right now. He's threatening to light American agriculture on fire."

[...]

"If he's serious, this is going to start hitting consumer goods and more Americans will feel it," said Chad Bown, a trade expert at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. "This could hit the Walmart shopper if it goes through."

Oh, shit. Farmers and Walmart shoppers are the lion's share of Trump voters.

Thursday night's statement  [...] said Trump wanted U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to consider imposing "$100 billion of additional tariffs" against China. A spokeswoman for Lighthizer later clarified that they would consider tariffs against $100 billion in goods, not $100 billion in actual tariffs.

Trump has no idea what he's saying, does he? Neither does anyone else.

Financial markets have wobbled as investors are led by Trump to think that the trade tensions are escalating, and then they are assuaged by another White House official suggesting that things will be resolved peacefully.

[...]

But every time aides attempt to soften the edge of Trump's trade threats, the president takes direct aim at Beijing and declares that he won't back down until the gap between U.S. imports from China and its exports to that country is dramatically narrowed.

[...]

Trump said the new tariffs under consideration would be a direct response to China's retaliation this week. He also said he has "instructed the Secretary of Agriculture, with the support of other members of my Cabinet, to use his broad authority to implement a plan to protect our farmers and agricultural interests."

I wonder what that will be.

A direct response to retaliation.  Not war.

[T]rade analysts warned that if Trump is considering additional subsidies to protect farmers from Chinese retaliatory tariffs that could expand the U.S.-China trade spat to other powerhouse agricultural countries like Australia, Brazil and Argentina.

[...]

"This has the potential to escalate this way beyond the U.S.-China box."

I'm telling you, The Large Baby Monster has no idea what he's talking about. He just spouts off in retaliation when something irks him and then tells other people to take care of it. Ask Michael Cohen.

Here's Charlie Pierce's take:

[U]nlike our president*, the people in charge of China know something about something, they’ve aimed their threats at the agricultural midwest, which went heavily for the president* in the last election.

[...]

There’s already some backing and filling from Camp Runamuck; they sent out Larry Kudlow, the White House chief economic adviser who also is something of a clown, to soft-pedal the president*’s threats.

Nevertheless, this is Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. ZZZ as to why voting for a vulgar talking yam because he makes you feel good about hating all the right people is a very stupid way of deciding who should be president. I wish the folks in Iowa and Nebraska and the Dakotas all the best but, Jesus, people, vote your glycine next time. We’ll all be better off.

  Charles P Pierce

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

In his mind, life is only about winners and losers

He just doesn't recognize what a loser he is.  (According to Forbes, The Most Notable Loser.)





Will no one ever teach him about trade deficits?  Maybe Gary Cohn tried and gave up.

Why did he repost that tweet to capitalize "Policies" and "Leadership"?  People comment on his weird use of capitalization from time to time.  I wonder if it's the German in him.  Maybe someone else actually is posting some tweets for him, and he's fixing them.

But, maybe more importantly, why hasn't he learned how to delete tweets after he edits them into a new one?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Stress tweeting

His economic advisers told him his announcement about tariffs was a mistake, so he's doubling down.

As we've already learned, that deficit isn't necessarily a bad thing.  But, I like his very juvenile approach to the European response:  Oh, yeah!?  For everything you do, we'll do something worse!

Somebody needs to read him Dr. Seuss' Butter Battle Book.  Or, he can just watch the video.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

You could do a better job as president

Even I could. I didn't use to think that, but that was before we got Donald Trump.

Here are some excerpts from a New York Times article back in July 2016, lamenting how little he knows about global trade. And apparently, he hasn't learned anything since then. Nobody's drawing pictures for him, I guess.

It’s not that trade deficits (and the capital inflows that are their flip side) don’t matter — but just knowing the numbers doesn’t tell you much about whether they are good, bad or indifferent.

Wouldn’t it be better if the U.S. didn’t run a deficit?

It’s not clear that that’s even an option, because the dollar isn’t used just in trade between the United States and other countries.

The dollar is a global reserve currency, meaning that it is used around the world in transactions that have nothing to do with the United States. When a Malaysian company does business with a German company, in many cases it will do business in dollars; when wealthy people in Dubai or Singapore’s government investment fund want to sock away money, they do so in large part in dollar assets.

That creates upward pressure on the dollar for reasons unrelated to trade flows between the United States and its partners. That, in turn, makes the dollar stronger, and American exporters less competitive, than they would be in a world where nobody used the dollar for anything except commerce involving the United States.

The roughly $500 billion trade deficit that the United States runs each year isn’t just about poorly negotiated trade deals and currency manipulation by this or that country. It’s also, to some degree, a byproduct of the central role the United States plays in the global financial system.

There’s even a name for this: the Triffin dilemma. In the mid-20th century, the economist Robert Triffin warned that the provider of the global reserve currency would need to run perpetual trade deficits to keep the world financial system from freezing, with those trade deficits potentially fueling domestic booms and busts.

The key idea is that if a President Trump or any other future leader really wants to reduce our trade deficits in a major way, that leader is going to have to rethink the very underpinnings of global finance.

  NYT

Jesus, the man can't even keep a business running.

There’s no doubt that maintaining the global reserve currency creates costs for the United States, namely a less competitive export industry.

But it also creates a lot of advantages. Lower interest rates and higher stock prices are among them (though they have the downside of also feeding debt-driven booms and busts). Even more important is what the dollar’s prominence in global finance does for America’s place in the world.

[...]

But it’s not just economics. “A lot of the benefits of having the reserve currency are more on the foreign policy side than the economic,” said Jennifer M. Harris, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of the recent “War by Other Means,” about the use of economic tools in foreign policy. The centrality of the dollar to global finance gives the United States power on the global stage that no other country can match. It has enforced sanctions on Iran, Russia, North Korea and terrorist groups with the implicit threat of cutting off access to the dollar payments system for any bank in the world that does not cooperate with American foreign policy. Part of what makes the United States powerful is the great importance of the dollar to global finance. And part of the price the United States pays for that status is a stronger currency and higher trade deficits than would be the case otherwise.

We may not have to worry about this aspect of it much longer anyway. The rest of the world, losing confidence in the US daily, may be moving toward other currencies.

Continue reading

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Debt/Deficit Redux

Unlike a household, the government doesn’t have to trim other parts of its budget to make ends meet. Congress can always create more room in the budget by adding rows or widening the columns to put more resources into education, infrastructure, defense and so on. It is purely a political decision.

Of course, there are real limits to what can be done. No country can commit to large-scale infrastructure investment unless it has the available labor, machinery, concrete and steel. Trying to spend too much will cause an inflation problem. The trick is to adjust the budget to make efficient use of the people, factories and raw materials we have.

But all of this goes unrecognized on Capitol Hill, where the very words “debt” and “deficit” have been weaponized for political ends. They serve as body armor to politicians who would deny resources to struggling communities or demand cuts to popular programs.

  NYT

In case you missed it, Adam Johnson and Nima Shirazi recently did a podcast on this very subject, with an emphasis on how it's used in the war against single payer health care. Listen here.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

A Slip of the Lip

Halperin: Why not in the first year, if you're elected — why not in 2013, go all the way and propose the kind of budget with spending restraints, that you'd like to see after four years in office?  Why not do it more quickly?


Romney: Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%.  That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I'm not going to do that, of course. 

Now, as it readily admits, the blog's knowledge of economics is limited to the blog's first law of economics — Fk The Deficit. People Got No Jobs. People Got No Money — and it also believes that most professional economists arrive at their conclusions by reading the entrails of doves and cutting up goats on a rock, so it may be wrong here, but didn't Romney, in saying that, pretty much blow up the entire rationale for over 30 years of Republican economics right there? Cutting government spending will throw us into a recession or depression?

[...]

That this remarkable moment sailed over Halperin's head and lodged in the wall behind him goes without saying.

  Charlie Pierce

Of course Willard isn't a real conservative anyway.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.