Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, Gravy Train said:

Can't put the toothpaste back after the Fed bought $2.3T in MBS, while PPP targeted $500B at business owners so they can further inflate asset prices (equities, Lambos, AirBnBs).  $4.6T was firehosed into the economy and everybody is gaslighting us about how inflation works.  Now nearly 40% of homeowners have no mortgage at all, so that home price isn't going to move much to appeal to affordability.  

Username is certainly apropos. 

  • Haha 2
Posted
On 5/14/2025 at 12:34 PM, Gravy Train said:

 

On 5/14/2025 at 2:56 PM, Captainant said:

Charging a "user fee" for foreign transactions conducted on US debt is a great way to give up our reserve currency status. Jesus fuckin Christ what an insane and isolationist idea

 

On 5/14/2025 at 3:33 PM, westexhorn said:

He partially wants to do that because his argument is that the risk/benefit profile of being reserve currency may not be worth it anymore.  It's called Triffin's dilemma.

 

On 5/14/2025 at 3:39 PM, Captainant said:

If you're an insane person who thinks that buying goods from another country means they're taking advantage of you, maybe it's a dilemma.

It's like saying you'll pass in family fued. Nobody fucking passes! Why are you there if you don't want to play?

Why is our trade and economic advisor seeking to reduce trade and shrink the economy?

 

On 5/14/2025 at 3:44 PM, westexhorn said:

I dont know.  Its retarded.  I think their main argument is regarding manufacturing and how that plays into national security since most stuff is made in China.  And secondly, the widening trade deficit and expanding debt.

This shit is too complex for me and I don't know what the right answer.  What I am more sure of is that complex issues like these are more likely to be fucked than not, especially when our govt can't do things with decades in mind.

 

16 hours ago, Gravy Train said:

Can't put the toothpaste back after the Fed bought $2.3T in MBS, while PPP targeted $500B at business owners so they can further inflate asset prices (equities, Lambos, AirBnBs).  $4.6T was firehosed into the economy and everybody is gaslighting us about how inflation works.  Now nearly 40% of homeowners have no mortgage at all, so that home price isn't going to move much to appeal to affordability.  

This interaction between you folks regarding economic policy was very enlightening. I learned something today. Pos rep. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
On 5/14/2025 at 12:04 PM, Wulaw Horn said:

I referred back with want because I was directly answering him- who said he thinks this might be what Trump wants. That’s the only reason I spoke about it in that sense. 
so far inflation is going down even 1.5 months after “liberation day”. Last quarter inflation was 1.5% and that is with shelter being dumbly higher than it should be. 
There’s no US legislation coming down the pipeline that’s going to be more involved in creating debt than we already have.  Thats because, other than reconciliation there is no legislation that’s going to happen.  I don’t think spending gets worked back much in reconciliation but they aren’t expanding spending in a major way. 
As far as “the tax cuts” go all they are doing is extending what we were already doing and taking a practical  approach to tips (it’s not worth cost both financial and credibility wise) to try to collect that small amount of money from tipped employees. That’s small ball. We’ve been living under (basically) the tax regime for 7 years- reconciliation isn’t going to blow up receipts in that sense. 

The bolded part was written in a tone that suggests Trump’s policy actions are responsible for inflation improvements. That is almost complete fiction.

Inflation is a condition that takes a long time to work its way thru the supply chain to become visible. It can take anywhere from a year to two + years for it to appear. Conversely, it takes several years to bring down. 

In addition, US inflation data includes highly lagging indicators, such as housing, distorting the real picture.

Trump’s policies this far have had almost zero to do with inflation reduction, except for him executing crooked deals with Saudi Arabia to temporarily reduce oil prices in exchange for favors for the Saudi royal family. Zero. In fact, his original dumping of trillions of dollars onto the market during Covid caused the inflation we experienced during the Biden administration. To be fair, Biden did not tackle inflation aggressively enough to reduce it, but Trump was the original source of it. 

Now, Trump’s tariff policies are incredibly inflationary. In addition, his budget does not effectively tackle the deficit. For all of the spending cuts, he’s just giving tax breaks (new and extending) to wash away any deficit reduction and moving money to defense, which doesn’t need it. This is why longer term rates continue to remain stubbornly high. This policy is the wrong policy. 

The conundrum we all face is that a Democrat controlled government wouldn’t cut government spending, and a mixed Democrat Republican Congress and Presidency will never agree on anything for the good of the country because Republicans have been following a strategy since the Obama administration of never doing anything positive while a Democrat is President.

So in summary, because of inept government leadership we will have higher inflation and deficits, and continue to spiral towards judgement day for the foreseeable future until US citizens start voting for candidates who solve these problems, rather than parties and candidates who are on the take from industries, the wealthy, and special interest groups. The only path out of this is a citizen who isn’t stupid. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

The conundrum we all face is that a Democrat controlled government wouldn’t cut government spending,

By the time Democrats regain control won’t have the choice. 

Posted
20 hours ago, Slacks said:

let me see what my 3.25% has to say about this...

 

19 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

My house isn't ever getting sold for a similar reason brother.

Preach!

My 2.875% became possible when some bad crap finally leaked off my credit report after seven years.   I refinanced and took $100k out and stuck it in my brokerage account.   And yes, the market from the January 2021 refi close till recently had no problem beating that interest rate.   My dilemma was to have a paid off house or a low interest loan - and for good or ill - I decided my heirs can worry about the rest of the 30 mortgage payments after I’m dead - or they ship me to a home, buy me a fancy drool cup, and sell the house to fund it

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

 

Preach!

My 2.875% became possible when some bad crap finally leaked off my credit report after seven years.   I refinanced and took $100k out and stuck it in my brokerage account.   And yes, the market from the January 2021 refi close till recently had no problem beating that interest rate.   My dilemma was to have a paid off house or a low interest loan - and for good or ill - I decided my heirs can worry about the rest of the 30 mortgage payments after I’m dead - or they ship me to a home, buy me a fancy drool cup, and sell the house to fund it

Must've went with Gabe. As Todd can future we take care 

Posted

Low interest rates can only hold you in your home by choice.  And some folks don't have a choice over time.  We could stay here until those "two steps" got too big one day.  Of course having my escrow increase enough because of taxes and insurance to bump my monthly note up nearly 9%, means my low interest rate got expense eclipsed this year.  So low rate with skyrocketing insurance (taxes lesser) burden, perhaps rising annually?  Then  the lower rate on the larger asset for us might mean, it's time to bail and downsize.  Now if the house keeps appreciating. Then those escrow expenses don't seem as bad, but still even 5% annual increases in taxes and insurance weren't in the envisioned future budgetary plan. 

I think rising insurance costs are going to be something that going forward is going to have a greater influence on the RE market in general.  Just one more suck on affordability.  Hell I will be having to do deals until they put me in the grave, just to keep up with my increased insurance costs.  

SO - for you guys writing mortgages, are you seeing a rise in insurance costs, when you doing your qualifying due diligence as a percentage of costs?  Just curious.  Or does USAA just hate me... 😉

Posted
2 hours ago, UTPhil2006 said:

Market down .04 as much as the naysayers above will have you believe 

Oh rates will tumble if the administration doesn’t start governing like adults, because crashing the economy will definitely lower rates. The only issue is that the deficit will get even worse in any recession. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, horn4life said:

I think rising insurance costs are going to be something that going forward is going to have a greater influence on the RE market in general.  Just one more suck on affordability.  Hell I will be having to do deals until they put me in the grave, just to keep up with my increased insurance costs.  

in South Louisiana the inability to obtain affordable homeowners insurance is the biggest problem we have with new real estate purchases.  Eventually, we will have  a cat four or five hurricane that follows the coast from Miami to Jacksonville, and with the demise of FEMA, that will reset Florida’s real estate picture for who knows how long. Obviously not in a good way.

When your mortgage note goes up $400 a month because of insurance, that is a game changer

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
29 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

in South Louisiana the inability to obtain affordable homeowners insurance is the biggest problem we have with new real estate purchases.  Eventually, we will have  a cat four or five hurricane that follows the coast from Miami to Jacksonville, and with the demise of FEMA, that will reset Florida’s real estate picture for who knows how long. Obviously not in a good way.

When your mortgage note goes up $400 a month because of insurance, that is a game changer

My buddy bought a nice condo at Clines Landing in Port A.   Their insurance has skyrocketed, and they are also losing revenue from their small marina area.  Deepening the channel for Super tankers, has the result of sending gnarly surge waves knocking the shit out of ther marina area.  I think the old rental income was in the $60K a year range, now $6K?.  I think they are now upside down on price.   

If forget how badly underfunded Florida's insurer of last resort is.  Seems like a couple years ago it has like 17% of the reserves to cover a major storm.  

Posted

Increasing Insurance costs and the increasing likelihood of flooding in Houston is what is going to drive me to move. I've thought about where to go next... I'm going to miss Houston. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
25 minutes ago, Slacks said:

Increasing Insurance costs and the increasing likelihood of flooding in Houston is what is going to drive me to move. I've thought about where to go next... I'm going to miss Houston. 

 

Well... is this actually a joke about driving out of Houston on Memorial day weekend?  But the places to go list... that is one long ass motherfucker....

Posted
5 hours ago, horn4life said:

Low interest rates can only hold you in your home by choice.  And some folks don't have a choice over time.  We could stay here until those "two steps" got too big one day.  Of course having my escrow increase enough because of taxes and insurance to bump my monthly note up nearly 9%, means my low interest rate got expense eclipsed this year.  So low rate with skyrocketing insurance (taxes lesser) burden, perhaps rising annually?  Then  the lower rate on the larger asset for us might mean, it's time to bail and downsize.  Now if the house keeps appreciating. Then those escrow expenses don't seem as bad, but still even 5% annual increases in taxes and insurance weren't in the envisioned future budgetary plan. 

I think rising insurance costs are going to be something that going forward is going to have a greater influence on the RE market in general.  Just one more suck on affordability.  Hell I will be having to do deals until they put me in the grave, just to keep up with my increased insurance costs.  

SO - for you guys writing mortgages, are you seeing a rise in insurance costs, when you doing your qualifying due diligence as a percentage of costs?  Just curious.  Or does USAA just hate me... 😉

Yes. Insurance is an absolute besting right now in Texas. It’s a massive problem. Get a broker and they might be able to save you some of that increase but it’s still a no lube at all situation. 

Posted
10 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

The bolded part was written in a tone that suggests Trump’s policy actions are responsible for inflation improvements. That is almost complete fiction.

Inflation is a condition that takes a long time to work its way thru the supply chain to become visible. It can take anywhere from a year to two + years for it to appear. Conversely, it takes several years to bring down. 

In addition, US inflation data includes highly lagging indicators, such as housing, distorting the real picture.

Trump’s policies this far have had almost zero to do with inflation reduction, except for him executing crooked deals with Saudi Arabia to temporarily reduce oil prices in exchange for favors for the Saudi royal family. Zero. In fact, his original dumping of trillions of dollars onto the market during Covid caused the inflation we experienced during the Biden administration. To be fair, Biden did not tackle inflation aggressively enough to reduce it, but Trump was the original source of it. 

Now, Trump’s tariff policies are incredibly inflationary. In addition, his budget does not effectively tackle the deficit. For all of the spending cuts, he’s just giving tax breaks (new and extending) to wash away any deficit reduction and moving money to defense, which doesn’t need it. This is why longer term rates continue to remain stubbornly high. This policy is the wrong policy. 

The conundrum we all face is that a Democrat controlled government wouldn’t cut government spending, and a mixed Democrat Republican Congress and Presidency will never agree on anything for the good of the country because Republicans have been following a strategy since the Obama administration of never doing anything positive while a Democrat is President.

So in summary, because of inept government leadership we will have higher inflation and deficits, and continue to spiral towards judgement day for the foreseeable future until US citizens start voting for candidates who solve these problems, rather than parties and candidates who are on the take from industries, the wealthy, and special interest groups. The only path out of this is a citizen who isn’t stupid. 

No- you are misunderstood what I was saying. What I am saying is that so far the parade of horribles spoken about from runaway inflation due to Tariffs has not happened. Might it?  Maybe. There’s also smart people saying it won’t be near as bad as predicted, and to the extent we see any increase it will be a one time event. 
I’m generally pretty anti-Tariff as any kind of permanent governing philosophy, I’m just skeptical of pretty much every economic figure I see problem yammering about. Their track record essentially sucks. Time will tell. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

IMG_4604.gif.9a152f57db650fb0a4dea14c1a07f13d.gif

I don’t know what that even means. It’s funny- someone was bragging upthread about their 6.875% interest rate they just signed. I have closed 40 deals so far and exactly one of them had a rate over 6.875%. 1/2 my deals have buy downs I paid on them at better than that.  Whatever. I’m the dumbest mortgage broker in America in that I work for an average of 122 basis points a transaction (gross) and the only reason it’s that high is because I typically have a 40 or 60 bip incentive on the vast majority of my files. 

Posted
53 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

No- you are misunderstood what I was saying. What I am saying is that so far the parade of horribles spoken about from runaway inflation due to Tariffs has not happened. Might it?  Maybe. There’s also smart people saying it won’t be near as bad as predicted, and to the extent we see any increase it will be a one time event. 
I’m generally pretty anti-Tariff as any kind of permanent governing philosophy, I’m just skeptical of pretty much every economic figure I see problem yammering about. Their track record essentially sucks. Time will tell. 

Agree. There is a chance the tariffs don’t produce inflation, or produce only transient inflation. Frankly, if it does work, great. The problem is that it will be hard to get the real story. I wish they would have implemented a more organized and targeted strategy to test it out, rather than Willy Nilly attacking the whole world at once, when all these trade partners know all they have to do is just wait us out until the stock market crashes. Then we will panic and cave.  Just like Putin waiting out the U.S. to get tired of funding Ukraine. 

Posted
On 5/14/2025 at 1:04 PM, Wulaw Horn said:

There’s no US legislation coming down the pipeline that’s going to be more involved in creating debt than we already have.

False. In process right now. 

On 5/14/2025 at 1:04 PM, Wulaw Horn said:

Thats because, other than reconciliation there is no legislation that’s going to happen.  I don’t think spending gets worked back much in reconciliation but they aren’t expanding spending in a major way. 

Dude. This is not how the debt works.  Remember when I told you that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts could not pay for themselves and would add to the debt and you argued with me about it? Remember when I said the same thing in 2017 (I don’t remember you arguing about that one)?
The CBO estimate of the current house bill is that it will add about $3.8T by 2034 and $5.1T if the temporary stuff (no tax on OT/Tips is set to expire in 2029 so they can make it an issue in the 2028 election). 
 

 

On 5/14/2025 at 1:04 PM, Wulaw Horn said:

As far as “the tax cuts” go all they are doing is extending what we were already doing* and taking a practical  approach to tips (it’s not worth cost both financial and credibility wise) to try to collect that small amount of money from tipped employees.**

* That’s false. They are extending the 2017 and adding new ones

** I have no idea what you mean and I suspect you don’t either. It’s 2025 and tips are accounted for and taxed as income. 
 

On 5/14/2025 at 1:04 PM, Wulaw Horn said:

We’ve been living under (basically) the tax regime for 7 years- reconciliation isn’t going to blow up receipts in that sense. 

Also false, at least based on the bill in progress and virtually all public statements of objective. Of course we don’t know what will ultimately wind up on the president’s desk because it will be negotiated behind closed doors and signed without full analysis, but it will almost certainly be more inflationary and cover less of the proposed spending. Not that we have a discretionary spending problem, though- you could cut every dollar of discretionary spending and we wouldn’t have a balanced budget, thanks to the 2001, 2003, and 2017 tax cuts. 
But sure, tell me more about inflation …

54 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

What I am saying is that so far the parade of horribles spoken about from runaway inflation due to Tariffs has not happened. Might it?  Maybe. There’s also smart people saying it won’t be near as bad as predicted, and to the extent we see any increase it will be a one time event. 

Is there a thesis here?

55 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I’m generally pretty anti-Tariff as any kind of permanent governing philosophy, I’m just skeptical of pretty much every economic figure I see problem yammering about. Their track record essentially sucks. Time will tell. 

Tariffs are a tax on consumption and they function by raising producer costs for supply chains with imported inputs and prices for finished imports. That’s not what they cause. It’s what they are. 

Wulaw, I’m sorry but you’re better than this. I have no idea what an “economic figure” is, but if you are talking about the consensus of mainstream economic thinking over the last 25 years (when you voted to take us out of budget surplus), their record is pretty good. 

3 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Frankly, if it does work, great.

What does “work” mean in this context?

Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

The conundrum we all face is that a Democrat controlled government wouldn’t cut government spending

See my post above re discretionary spending. There is only one way out - lowering entitlement and military  spending pretty substantially, and we are very possibly past the event horizon anyway.  I’ve recommended Ray Dalio’s Big Debt Crises here when it came out and it seems especially timely now. 

But you can’t possibly pretend that the parties aren’t different and that one party hasn’t actively made the situation massively worse, and it wasn’t the Democrats. 
(And I am not a Democrat)

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

 

What does “work” mean in this context?

Their definition of “work” is that trading partner currencies drop by the same amount of the tariff, leading to Americans not paying any more for tariffed goods. However, this is a suspect “win” because that would mean a strengthening dollar, which would hurt exports.  So I personally don’t see how it can end in a win. But a win would be defined by a more balanced trade (significantly lower trade deficits) with no inflation. Seems impossible to me given what they are doing. 

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

But a win would be defined by a more balanced trade (significantly lower trade deficits) with no inflation. Seems impossible to me given what they are doing. 

Oh, their definition. Got it. I don’t think that’s a smart goal but either way I agree it seems highly unlikely. I mean it’s probable that imports will fall for multiple reasons, but it’s also probable that the dollar will weaken and more importantly demand for the dollar will weaken, which means our debt is more expensive to service and the use of the dollar as a reserve weakens and so on. I don’t see how you can even achieve the stated goal without inflation, because a weaker dollar relative to the cost of imports *is* inflation, in trade terms. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Posted
23 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

False. In process right now. 

Dude. This is not how the debt works.  Remember when I told you that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts could not pay for themselves and would add to the debt and you argued with me about it? Remember when I said the same thing in 2017 (I don’t remember you arguing about that one)?
The CBO estimate of the current house bill is that it will add about $3.8T by 2034 and $5.1T if the temporary stuff (no tax on OT/Tips is set to expire in 2029 so they can make it an issue in the 2028 election). 
 

 

* That’s false. They are extending the 2017 and adding new ones

** I have no idea what you mean and I suspect you don’t either. It’s 2025 and tips are accounted for and taxed as income. 
 

Also false, at least based on the bill in progress and virtually all public statements of objective. Of course we don’t know what will ultimately wind up on the president’s desk because it will be negotiated behind closed doors and signed without full analysis, but it will almost certainly be more inflationary and cover less of the proposed spending. Not that we have a discretionary spending problem, though- you could cut every dollar of discretionary spending and we wouldn’t have a balanced budget, thanks to the 2001, 2003, and 2017 tax cuts. 
But sure, tell me more about inflation …

Is there a thesis here?

Tariffs are a tax on consumption and they function by raising producer costs for supply chains with imported inputs and prices for finished imports. That’s not what they cause. It’s what they are. 

Wulaw, I’m sorry but you’re better than this. I have no idea what an “economic figure” is, but if you are talking about the consensus of mainstream economic thinking over the last 25 years (when you voted to take us out of budget surplus), their record is pretty good. 

What does “work” mean in this context?

The bolded part is the main point/ nothing we are doing now is fundamentally different than doing nothing is my point. 
also- revenues are up bigly from 2017. We have a spending problem not a revenue problem. We are not serious about that. We won’t be serious about that. So none of the other shit matters. 
as far as the 2001 and 2017 cuts go that you are taking a victory lap on you are wrong. Maybe I should say you should be better than that. Show me on the chart where revenues declined in any kind of appreciable manner and I will maybe consider giving a shit about that. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)

Is this where I’m supposed to blame tax policy in late 2017 (no affect until 2018 on revenues) on exploding the deficit? 
 

Year Total Receipts (USD)
2024 $5.143 trillion
2023 $4.869 trillion
2022 $5.154 trillion
2021 $4.451 trillion
2020 $3.786 trillion
2019 $3.721 trillion
2018 $3.606 trillion
2017 $3.760 trillion
2016 $3.481 trillion
2015 $3.469 trillion
Edited by Wulaw Horn
Posted (edited)

Tell me what I’m missing in really small words like I’m an idiot to explain how this tax policy is killing us. 
I see flat revenue for 3 years and then huge growth afterwards.  The 15t or whatever added to debt is entirely a spending problem. 
pit another way/ I will bet you 2 or 3 years from now the budget deficit is lower than it was in 23 and 24. 

Edited by Wulaw Horn
Posted
6 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

The bolded part is the main point/ nothing we are doing now is fundamentally different than doing nothing is my point. 
also- revenues are up bigly from 2017. We have a spending problem not a revenue problem. We are not serious about that. We won’t be serious about that. So none of the other shit matters. 
as far as the 2001 and 2017 cuts go that you are taking a victory lap on you are wrong. Maybe I should say you should be better than that. Show me on the chart where revenues declined in any kind of appreciable manner and I will maybe consider giving a shit about that. 

 

2 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Is this where I’m supposed to blame tax policy in late 2017 (no affect until 2018 on revenues) on cutting taxes? 
 

Year Total Receipts (USD)
2024 $5.143 trillion
2023 $4.869 trillion
2022 $5.154 trillion
2021 $4.451 trillion
2020 $3.786 trillion
2019 $3.721 trillion
2018 $3.606 trillion
2017 $3.760 trillion
2016 $3.481 trillion
2015 $3.469 trillion

This is a very incomplete view of the situation. Yes government spending needs to be reigned in, for sure. But what’s matters most is reducing the deficit. And the ONLY way to do that, which every credible economist knows, is a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. Instead, the Republicans express faux outrage at spending while diverting funds to defense and cutting taxes. It’s ridiculous.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)

Here is a summary of U.S. federal government total receipts from 1999 to 2008, based on data from YCharts:

Year Total Receipts (USD)
2008 $2.610 trillion
2007 $2.695 trillion
2006 $2.567 trillion
2005 $2.330 trillion
2004 $2.053 trillion
2003 $1.918 trillion
2002 $1.896 trillion
2001 $2.060 trillion
2000 $2.096 trillion
1999 $1.935 trillion
 

This data reflects the federal government's total receipts, which include various sources such as individual income taxes, corporate taxes, payroll taxes, and other revenues. YCharts

If you need a visual representation or further breakdowns by revenue source, feel free to ask!

 
Favicon
Sources
 
4o
You said:
If I started at 2.06 and got 2% compounded growth annually how much would I have in 5 years. 
 
ChatGPT said:
 

If you started with $2.06 trillion and experienced 2% compounded annual growth, after 5 years you would have approximately $2.27 trillion. 

4o
You said:
How much would that add up to over that 5 years? 
 
ChatGPT said:
 

Over the 5 years, the total accumulated revenue with 2% annual compounded growth would add up to approximately $10.93 trillion. 

4o
You said:
How much did the actual results add up to over 5 years starting in 2002
 
ChatGPT said:
 

The actual total federal revenue from 2002 to 2006 added up to approximately $10.76 trillion

 

 

looks to me like we collected about 99% of what we would have collected without the tax cuts and 5 years in we were collecting more than would be expected otherwise. By year 6 we had collected more than we would have expected to if we didn’t touch taxes in 2001. 

Edited by Wulaw Horn
Posted

The average annual U.S. real GDP growth rate from 2000 through 2024 was approximately 2.0%. This period encompassed significant economic events, including the early 2000s recession, the Great Recession of 2008–2009, the COVID-19 pandemic, and subsequent recoveries.

Posted

Treasury collection from 2017-2024 total- not by year. 
ChatGPT said:

Between fiscal years 2017 and 2024, the U.S. federal government collected a total of approximately $34.3 trillion in revenue. This figure encompasses all sources of federal income, including individual and corporate income taxes, payroll taxes, excise taxes, and other receipts.Fiscal Data

For detailed breakdowns by revenue source or further information, you can explore the Monthly Treasury Statement dataset.Fiscal Data+4Fiscal Data+4Fiscal Data+4

Sources
 
4.1-mini
You said:
Treasury collection in 2017
ChatGPT said:

In fiscal year 2017, the U.S. federal government collected approximately $3.32 trillion in tax revenue. This total includes individual income taxes, Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes, corporate income taxes, and other receipts such as excise taxes and customs duties. Wikipedia

The breakdown of major revenue sources for FY 2017 was as follows:

  • Individual Income Taxes: $1.587 trillion (48% of total receipts)

  • Social Security and Medicare Payroll Taxes: $1.162 trillion (35%)

  • Corporate Income Taxes: $297 billion (9%)

  • Other Receipts: $135.9 billion (4%) WikipediaBureau of the Fiscal Service

These figures reflect the government's revenue collection during the fiscal year, which ran from October 1, 2016, to September 30, 2017.

 
Favicon
 
Favicon
Sources
 
4.1-mini
You said:
Total collection if you start at 3.32 and compound at 2% over 8 years
ChatGPT said:

It seems like I can’t do more advanced data analysis right now. Please try again later. 

4.1-mini
You said:
3.32 compounded over 8 years at 2% yearly. 
ChatGPT said:

To calculate 3.32 compounded annually at 2% over 8 years:

Future value = 3.32 × (1 + 0.02)⁸
= 3.32 × (1.1717)
 3.89

So, after 8 years, the amount would be approximately 3.89 trillion.

4.1-mini
You said:
Add all 8 years together. 
ChatGPT said:

To get the total amount accumulated over all 8 years with 2% annual compounding, we sum each year’s value:

Year 1: 3.32 × 1.02¹
Year 2: 3.32 × 1.02²
...
Year 8: 3.32 × 1.02⁸

This is a geometric series. The formula for the sum is:

S = P × [( (1 + r)^(n+1) - (1 + r) ) / r ]

Where:

  • P = 3.32

  • r = 0.02

  • n = 8

Calculating:

S = 3.32 × [ (1.02⁹ - 1.02) / 0.02 ]

Let me calculate that:

1.02⁹ ≈ 1.19405
So, (1.19405 - 1.02) / 0.02 = 8.7025

Then:

S ≈ 3.32 × 8.7025 ≈ 28.89 trillion

So, the total over 8 years would be about 28.89 trillion.

  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)

Tell me how- if we collected more over the time period after tax cuts than we would have if just growing at the rate the economy has grown in this century we have a revenue problem. I’m all ears bc I don’t understand the answer nor the thought process. Did chat gpt forget to carry a 1 or something?  Is the underlying data wrong?  
Nvm. This whole page sucks (not that the discussion is bad or that I mind it) because that’s not what this thread is about. 

Edited by Wulaw Horn
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Tell me what I’m missing in really small words like I’m an idiot to explain how this tax policy is killing us. 

No. I did that 20 years ago. You chose to believe otherwise. Setting that aside, was I wrong about what was going to happen (the end of surplus, explosion of deficits)?

33 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I see flat revenue for 3 years and then huge growth afterwards.

Oh my god we went over this 20 years ago. Stimulus stimulates. Nobody disputes that. The question is whether the stimulus pays for itself, which it didn’t, and 2017 didn’t either. Just because revenue increased doesn’t mean that it did, and if you have a problem with that, take it up with the CBO. That’s not even a matter of debate outside of politics. 
You keep banging on revenue going up because you’ve been taken in by bullshit artists. If that was an answer we wouldn’t be here. 2017 and this bill are a wealth transfer from your kids to me. Thank them, please. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Yes. Insurance is an absolute besting right now in Texas. It’s a massive problem. Get a broker and they might be able to save you some of that increase but it’s still a no lube at all situation. 

consider the source, take it for what it’s worth  - yada yada

My neighbor across the street works for State Farm and excitedly told me that my ZIP Code is an area where State Farm is writing new policies.  That was news to me because everyone is getting out of the state, and State Farm has been trying like hell to not write policies.   

We have an insurer of last resort in Louisiana I’m sure you are aware of, Louisiana citizens insurance.   When I told my neighbor I was surprised State Farm was writing hurricane policies, he then told me that the new State Farm homeowners policies include everything but wind and hurricane damage.  

When I asked him who the hell would buy those, he told me that you could get a hurricane only policy from citizens and get the State Farm policy, ensuring the normal fire and liability coverage - and the cost of the two is cheaper than the cost of buying one hurricane coverage policy under our current situation.

I have no idea if that is accurate, or if there’s any validity in trying to find two policies that provide coverage for the one traditional policy, so I’m just throwing it out there for anyone to investigate if they are having homeowners coverage problems.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)

Getting back to mortgages, my wife found a 1.2mm 3/2 spec house in east Austin she really likes, replete with a great view, the gentrification font on the numbers, and condo regime between the front and back units (also for sale, $775). It also has a sort of mini pool. The listing agent (who also wants to list my house) keeps checking out my LinkedIn profile. 
 

on a scale of 1-10 how fucked am I?

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

Getting back to mortgages, my wife found a 1.2mm 3/2 spec house in east Austin she really likes, replete with a great view, the gentrification font on the numbers, and condo regime between the front and back units (also for sale, $775). It also has a sort of mini pool. 
 

on a scale of 1-10 how fucked am I?

5.5. There are several ways to choke that chicken. 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, UTPhil2006 said:

5.5. There are several ways to choke that chicken. 

Do tell! A couple things:

1) if I was going to buy either I would buy both. How does it work to own both Units of a condo regime if one is a rental or STR? The lot is not subdivided.
2) In this environment, how hard of a bargain could I drive if I was willing to take down both? 
3) we’d be looking at an October close. What does the crystal ball say I looking at as of right now with a 20% down payment? Could I homestead both? Would they have separate notes?

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

consider the source, take it for what it’s worth  - yada yada

My neighbor across the street works for State Farm and excitedly told me that my ZIP Code is an area where State Farm is writing new policies.  That was news to me because everyone is getting out of the state, and State Farm has been trying like hell to not write policies.   

We have an insurer of last resort in Louisiana I’m sure you are aware of, Louisiana citizens insurance.   When I told my neighbor I was surprised State Farm was writing hurricane policies, he then told me that the new State Farm homeowners policies include everything but wind and hurricane damage.  

When I asked him who the hell would buy those, he told me that you could get a hurricane only policy from citizens and get the State Farm policy, ensuring the normal fire and liability coverage - and the cost of the two is cheaper than the cost of buying one hurricane coverage policy under our current situation.

I have no idea if that is accurate, or if there’s any validity in trying to find two policies that provide coverage for the one traditional policy, so I’m just throwing it out there for anyone to investigate if they are having homeowners coverage problems.

 

That’s essentially how it is in Texas in counties that border the gulf. You get two policies. The fire one is dirt cheap and the other one is windstorm through TWIA. That’s Texas wind something something I believe and is a state type deal I believe. 

Edited by Wulaw Horn
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

Fuck off, I'm willing to give up a 2.8% to get out of Texas and the math ain't mathing.  Tell me when I regain my sanity, if doubling my mortgage coupon for a similar appraised house makes sense. 

Edited by Gravy Train
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Gravy Train said:

Fuck off, I'm willing to give up a 2.8% to get out of Texas and the math ain't mathing.  Tell me when I regain my sanity, if doubling my mortgage coupon for a similar appraised house makes sense. 

Would it make you happy?  Solve a problem? Can you afford to do it?  Then yes. 

Posted
15 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Here is a summary of U.S. federal government total receipts from 1999 to 2008, based on data from YCharts:

Year Total Receipts (USD)
2008 $2.610 trillion
2007 $2.695 trillion
2006 $2.567 trillion
2005 $2.330 trillion
2004 $2.053 trillion
2003 $1.918 trillion
2002 $1.896 trillion
2001 $2.060 trillion
2000 $2.096 trillion
1999 $1.935 trillion
 

This data reflects the federal government's total receipts, which include various sources such as individual income taxes, corporate taxes, payroll taxes, and other revenues. YCharts

If you need a visual representation or further breakdowns by revenue source, feel free to ask!

 
Favicon
Sources
 
4o
You said:
If I started at 2.06 and got 2% compounded growth annually how much would I have in 5 years. 
 
ChatGPT said:
 

If you started with $2.06 trillion and experienced 2% compounded annual growth, after 5 years you would have approximately $2.27 trillion. 

4o
You said:
How much would that add up to over that 5 years? 
 
ChatGPT said:
 

Over the 5 years, the total accumulated revenue with 2% annual compounded growth would add up to approximately $10.93 trillion. 

4o
You said:
How much did the actual results add up to over 5 years starting in 2002
 
ChatGPT said:
 

The actual total federal revenue from 2002 to 2006 added up to approximately $10.76 trillion

 

 

looks to me like we collected about 99% of what we would have collected without the tax cuts and 5 years in we were collecting more than would be expected otherwise. By year 6 we had collected more than we would have expected to if we didn’t touch taxes in 2001. 


Thinking Think GIF by Rodney Dangerfield

  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

No- you are misunderstood what I was saying. What I am saying is that so far the parade of horribles spoken about from runaway inflation due to Tariffs has not happened. Might it?  Maybe. There’s also smart people saying it won’t be near as bad as predicted, and to the extent we see any increase it will be a one time event. 
I’m generally pretty anti-Tariff as any kind of permanent governing philosophy, I’m just skeptical of pretty much every economic figure I see problem yammering about. Their track record essentially sucks. Time will tell. 

Tariffs are inflationary, period.  And folks that say "it won't be that bad" simply are not good at math, and horrific at understanding economics.  Walmart for example has until now "eaten the tariffs."  Why would they "eat" tariffs?  To not lose hard earned market share.  Walmart can also ease up margins on ALL products due to the diversity in the sourcing of their product line.  So the ability to "hide" the increased costs of tax tariffed products.  During it's earning report Walmart explained that going forward, that they would have to pass on the costs to consumers at some point.   

In reaction to this truthful statement, the administration calls and threatens/begs/cajoles Walmart to not pass on rising costs associated with tariff taxes.  President Trump tweets that Walmart should just continue to eat the tariffs.  That is pretty good evidence that tariffs cause inflation.  Both the statement by Walmart, and the political posturing to subvert the reality of tariff tax costs, being ultimately passed onto consumers are affirmation of who pays for tariffs.

Economics is a particularly imperfect art.  As there are so many moving parts, and the underlying data is often not accurate in real time.  But over time, and longer periods, Economics is relatively straightforward.  Supply, Demand, market advantages and market drags as well as costs of borrowing are pretty much the whole ball of wax.  What is really important to understand right now is that all the "inflation news is not that bad" is a combination of companies willingly not passing on increased costs, for fear of losing market share.  (Something tough for smaller businesses).  So those costs have been instead subtracted from profits temporarily, but in a manner IMPOSSIBLE to sustain.  The tariff taxes will be passed on to the consumer, there is no other alternative.  Or have publicly traded companies stock prices reflect large decreases in profitability and thus stock value decrease for investors.  And smaller less diversified companies That is what is behind door number two.  

In all honesty you are going to have the companies that can, will try to hold off increasing prices as long as they can.  Trying to find a temporary balance of door number 1, and not giving guidance specifics on their likely result  As the last to blink may actually gain market share from those who blink sooner on passing on tariff taxes.  But over time more and more of the cost will simply be passed onto the consumer and shifted back into the bottom line.  Unless of course you think business folks just let their profit margins erode permanently? So for a while it is possible that things "are not that bad" because of that early profit eating tax absorption.  But that is not sustainable.  Unfortunately for the mortgage writing industry this means the Fed is going to wait and see.  And when they wait, they will see... inflation.  Because when you add a tax to the cost of goods sold, it cannot always be absorbed solely from a businesses profit.    Of course maybe a lot of companies have a shit ton of excess profit they can allocate to whatever tariff tax costs they will face? 😉 

But like I said before, when Scott Bessent is calling up Walmart, and the President is telling a company to eat the tariffs?  That tells me that the same people saying that tariff taxes are not inflationary, know sure as hell they are! Somebody HAS to eat the new additional cost of goods.  That person is the consumer of those goods.

 

 

 

 

Edited by horn4life
Posted

 

 

Fiscal Year

 

 

President Responsible

 

 

House Control

 

 

Senate Control

 

 

Deficit (USD)

 

 

% of GDP

2012 Barack Obama (D) Republican Democratic $1.327 trillion 8.5%
2013 Barack Obama (D) Republican Democratic $680 billion 4.1%
2014 Barack Obama (D) Republican Democratic $485 billion 2.8%
2015 Barack Obama (D) Republican Republican $442 billion 2.4%
2016 Barack Obama (D) Republican Republican $585 billion 3.1%
2017 Barack Obama (D)† Republican Republican $665 billion 3.4%
2018 Donald Trump (R) Republican Republican $779 billion 3.8%
2019 Donald Trump (R) Democratic Republican $984 billion 4.6%
2020 Donald Trump (R) Democratic Republican $3.132 trillion 14.9%
2021 Donald Trump (R)† Democratic Republican†† $2.775 trillion 12.4%
2022 Joe Biden (D) Democratic Democratic $1.375 trillion 5.5%
2023 Joe Biden (D) Republican Democratic $1.695 trillion 6.3%
2024 Joe Biden (D) Republican Democratic $1.833 trillion 6.4%
2025 Joe Biden (D) Republican Democratic $1.9 trillion 6.5%

Footnotes:

  • Although Donald Trump was president during part of FY 2017 (starting January 20, 2017), the FY 2017 budget was mostly planned and signed into law during the Obama administration. Trump later signed supplemental appropriations.

  • †† Senate control in FY 2021 was effectively split 50-50 after the January 2021 runoffs in Georgia, with Vice President Kamala Harris (D) casting tie-breaking votes, giving Democrats functional control starting late January 2021 — but this occurred after the FY 2021 budget was largely set under Republican control.

I think this chart sums it up pretty well. Barack Obama did a pretty good job as President keeping spending under or around 3% of GSP after the 2009 financial crisis died down. Trump was an absolute disaster because he panicked during Covid and wildly overspent. Biden was ridiculously overspending, and here we sit with Trump in office and in control over both houses of Congress and the House passed a budget that will be the worst yet. Specifically for FY 2026, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that the deficit could rise by nearly $600 billion, bringing the total deficit to approximately $2.3 trillion, or about 7.3% of GDP . Fucking disaster.

Posted
On 5/23/2025 at 5:02 PM, Wulaw Horn said:

Yes. Insurance is an absolute besting right now in Texas. It’s a massive problem. Get a broker and they might be able to save you some of that increase but it’s still a no lube at all situation. 

Even with a broker... Prices are crazy high and insurers are picky as hell. I had one drop me for having galvanized pipes.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...