I sold took some NVIDIA profit at the split and kept some. Would have kept more but it would have violated one of my core investment philosophies that has kept me out of getting into emotional trouble with a stock.
OT: Stawks and jobs
- Thread starter BoDawg.sixpack
- Start date
And the take our medicine crowd is no different than the entirety of the US tax paying population in wanting both to not go broke and not wanting to cut the only two programs that will have meaningful impact on our deficit spending (Medicaid and SS) and not wanting to raise taxes. Admittedly Dems want the rich to pay their fair share, but honestly it will take that plus more to have a chance at stemming the flow from those two programs. It's a mess that isn't easily fixable...
At this point, a firm 1 random health related pass out at the podium limit during your service term would help! semi-sacasterisks
whatever date I admitted I bought IBIT (5/20). NVDA is up nearly 19% while IBIT is up 3.88%
Desperate times calls for working it from both the receipts and spend side. We've been head in sand for too long. Trimming fat and kicking off abusers or people who don't need the benefits is more than fair - it must happen. Continuing to give tax cuts to rich people hoping their wealth will trickle down to the poor so they can afford private insurance? Sounds great - never works out that way.
Someone has to sack up and make the math work.
The reckoning is coming. We will either hit it with a plan, or we will react to it and suffer whatever consequences it brings. Maybe there will be a clear winner in the culture wars that both parties seem most interested in by then.
Nah, he’s very intelligent. Just does what his voters like to see him do.
Controlling the amount of interest that the US pays on its debt is not the Fed’s concern. Their mandate is 1. Maintaining a healthy job market and 2. Maintaining inflation at an acceptable level.
The Treasury Dept borrows the money.
Five years ago, during COVID, the Treasury was issuing 30 year bonds with a yield around 1.2%.
If only our President at that time (who was that again?) had gotten with Congress and requested that the Treasury issue as many bonds as they could sell.
Someone missed their chance. Will they get another one? I think that only happens if we have another lock-down (doubtful), major recession (one day) world war (who knows) another 9/11 (praying no) or another market meltdown (also, one day)
Average Joe’s do not borrow money that they don’t need but the government is not an average Joe. As long as their “debt limit” will allow it, they can borrow, borrow, borrow.
That’s my novice opinion
The Treasury Dept borrows the money.
Five years ago, during COVID, the Treasury was issuing 30 year bonds with a yield around 1.2%.
If only our President at that time (who was that again?) had gotten with Congress and requested that the Treasury issue as many bonds as they could sell.
Someone missed their chance. Will they get another one? I think that only happens if we have another lock-down (doubtful), major recession (one day) world war (who knows) another 9/11 (praying no) or another market meltdown (also, one day)
Average Joe’s do not borrow money that they don’t need but the government is not an average Joe. As long as their “debt limit” will allow it, they can borrow, borrow, borrow.
That’s my novice opinion
We arent going to tax our way out of this. We have a HUGE spending problem.
Adjusted for inflation spend per capita by US federal government
1901 $230.8233491
1950 $2255.059977
1970 $3735.228944
2000 $9843.792989
2022 $14293.01185
62x increase after inflation adjusted
Now, I’d agree to a slight tax increase if we had a mandatory 3% cut across the board yearly until revenue was greater than expenses.
It needs a wrecking ball. Not a scalpel.
Yeah. I think it will require all available options. And that sucks because I’ll be on the hook for more taxes and help for my SS dependent parents but I don’t see another way to get there. Freakanomics had a great episode about this.
it’s contrary to their goal. No bank wants you to pay off the loan. They are better off if you only pay the interest
Cut cut cut
there is no way we spent $10,000 a person in 2000 and all thrived and now need $16 to $17,000 a person
What do the pie charts look like that show entitlements, military, interest, etc? Would like to see which has been driving the growth the most.
I'm not sure but covid expenditures did a lot of damage. And i get that but we are passed covid.
Thats the problem with big government. Once they get their hands on it, they don't wanna let it go.
And that tells me a lot of it is entitlement money. (eta: the fact it shot up during and just after covid)
We need to audit all departments but entitlement money is out of control.
I am all for cutting spending where it is not beneficial.
I am all for improving efficiencies and lowering hard and soft expenses as a result.
Responsibly doing this over a known period of time, with recommendations given by each department/division/cabinet should be expected by all who are directly involved, directly impacted, and vote.
I am firmly against the absurd slashing of an entire department, realizing oh that was dumb, scrambling to rehire clearly essential people, and then doing the exact 17ing thing the next week to another departnent/agency/division.
I am firmly against villifying people online who oversee departments and projects, claiming they are corrupt without any evidence, and allowing that to generate threats of violence and death by ignorant and dangerous dummies in the country.
I am firmly against the immature and irresponsible practice of releasing data which is isn't accurate or isn't understood, associating it to a contentious claim/initiative, and watching the misinformation dangerously spread like wildfire across society.
I’m strongly against absurd spending.
We are there. We have been there.
It’s time to take a hatchet to it.
“ESSENTIAL” Ha
How are you this opinionated yet unaware of all the rehired people who were rehired because it was determined they shouldn't have been let go in the first place for various reasons?
I am family friends with 2 who were rif'd and rehired. It was comical because nobody was assigned to do their jobs. Their different work, which is required by law to be done, just wasn't done until they were called back(both of their teams were called back in full) and there was a backlog to work through.
That is a small scale actual example, but thisnis well documented and has been done multiple times.
RFK even said one of many dumb things he says, when he defended regiring people by claiming that was always the plan. The plan was apparently always to mass layoff and then bring essential people back.
That is one of the absolute dumbest ways to manage and makes 0 sense, but he claims it was always the plan.
That is twice you have used quotes around that word and laughed but not explained why.
What word would you like to use to describe the people that were rif'd and rehired?
Just bc you were rehired doesn’t make you essential you idiot.
Maybe start with the definition of the word essential.
ESSENTIAL - absolutely necessary; extremely important.
Why would people be rehired after being fired, if they weren't necessary or extremely important?
- People in the DOE who are involved in maintaining our nukes were fired and rehired.
- People involved in ensuring food safety were fired and rehired.
- People responsible for reviewing, reacting, and responding to FOIA demands were fired and rehired.
- People responsible for preventing health issues like lead poisoning in children were fired and rehired.
- People overseeing radiation exposure initiatives were fired and rehired.
The list goes on, but I know you struggle to read a lot of words on an issue, so I won't continue with countless more examples.
Not every person who has to have to job by “law” is essential
We could cut 10 to 20% of our government expenditures and never miss a beat.
How do I know that? Bc 15 years ago we were there.
Except yeah, they are essential because the law needs to be followed.
If you want to change the law, then sure- those people are no longer essential. But that isn't reality, that's a hypothetical. Here in reality, the law requires people to be employed in order to have the law be followed(FOIA fulfillment, for example).
I listed multiple examples of people who were fired and rehired. They arent essential in the concept that if the jobs don't exist then yes life will continue, but they are essential in the concept that society doesn't want to lead poision our children, or unknowingly expose people to high levels or radiation, or for a nuke to not work properly.
Those are all extremely important jobs(essential). And they were rehired because the dummies that mass fired them in the first place realized the error.
'I track and reduce lead poisoning in children.'
YOU AREN'T ESSENTIAL!
'I help keep people from being exposed to high levels of radiation.'
YOU AREN'T ESSENTIAL!
'I help ensure the safety of our nukes.'
YOU AREN'T ESSENTIAL!
Step back and look at what you are arguing right now.
Reality is that mass firings led to a bunch of rehiring because they didnt bother to figure out what jobs are and aren't necessary before firing people. I constantly hear about how the Fed Gvt needs to be run like a business, yet no successful business would ever operate like that.
Mass cuts are dumb. Taking time to assess and reduce where possible is smart.
Yep and the people cheering on the reset aren't here still cheering for it either.
TLDR
We’ve had plenty of time to assess.
62x increase in per capita spending since 1900. INFLATION ADJUSTED.
Thats not essential. That’s theft.
That continues to track for you.
And yet they had to rehire a bunch of people. So that means, according to your comment, they correctly assessed something they had plenty of time to assess?
So they are just bad at it then. Cool, gotcha.
Why the 17 are you using 1900 as some point in time when federal spending was 'good'?
That's a hilarious period of time to select.
125 years ago is before computers, before 2 world wars, before women could vote, before National Parks Service existed, before even 10% of homes had electricity, and before the average age of death was even 50.
How the government spent money 125 years ago, or how much per person it spent, is not relevant now.
Spending can and should be cut. Choosing 1900 as the ideal baseline for comparison is arbitrary and dumb.
Also, you seem to not understand what the word essential means or how it applies to this conversation, since you just misused it in your post.
wtf do you focus on just 1900?
it’s gonna up by too Much in the last 40 years. 30, 20, even 5.
I’d be perfectly fine with going back to 2010 level spending. He’ll going back to 2019 would be great
You cited 1900 and produced a stat that was based in that year.
So I responded by referencing that year since, you know, thats how conversation works.
...and now you are asking why I focused on 1900?
Bro, you are too much sometimes! Haha, wow.
I’m all for it. I just have no clue what’s going on. I’ve been expecting a reset for 10 years now. Eventually I’ll be right**
Actually I referenced 15 years ago first. And I’ve referenced 1900 among other more recent years in multiple posts recently.
You probably missed it bc you grab ahold of the one thing that you can write a book reply about.
It’s ok to be wrong. You are. A LOT.
We spend too much GD money. It’s not debatable.
I didn't miss those other dates. I responded to a post of yours that cited numbers based on 1900, so I gave my view that using 1900 is dumb.
Thanks for proving my point. You find one thing you think you can hold on to and you dig in bc you know your argument is invalid.
we spend too much money. It’s simple. It’s a fact. Just admit.
or be a 17ing idiot. I don’t care.
I have said I am good with cuts to budgets. That was in probably my first post in the thread.
I don't know why we should be at a spending amount from 10 years ago or 30 or 125 though.
It seems best to just assess departments/programs and reduce where its possible and realistic while still fulfilling the purpose of each department/program.
And if a department/program serves no benefit, then the proper procedure to cut it should be followed.
Instead of the above happening, the group that controls spending basically gave up that power to a drug fueled billionaire who bought his way into having access and childishly posted lies and misinformation about government spending, which furthered citizen distrust on both sides of the aisle.
And then, that same elected group just voted a few days ago to legislation which will significantly INCREASE national debt.
You are an inept moron. The reason you compare 30 years ago and 20 and 10 is for a baseline. Why did spending go up? Was it justified? It’s possible (it’s not justified I can assure you but it’s possible).
This is why government budgeting should take a more business approach.
Comparisons and analysis is great in every aspect of what one does. Where am I today compared to yesterday?
No one lied about the government spending. We literally gave billions to things like trans comic books in South America. Contraceptives to Africa. DEI in berna.
None of that BS is justified. Zero.
Last edited: