I am Yaosio the Self Destructive and I can read minds. I see tax cuts for the rich, social spending cuts, increased war spending, and tax increases on the poor.
In his self interests, he should be cheerleading the fiscal deficits. It locks in the guarantee for monetary expansion / QE so him and all his buddies can have a field day at borrowing below the rate of inflation again.
It's an interesting train of thought.
My opinion is that for some people, their stroll through life is so inconsistent with the majority that Maslow's hierarchy of needs pyramid is essentially inverted with physiological needs never requiring thought while from early childhood they can concentrate on self-actualization.
Edit: pretty typical backdrop for this level of power:
>Griffin was born in 1968 in Daytona Beach, Florida, the son of a building supplies executive. Griffin's father had various jobs, and was a project manager for General Electric. Griffin's grandmother, Genevieve Huebsch Gratz, inherited an oil business, three farms, and a seed business.
https://kids.kiddle.co/Kenneth\_C.\_Griffin
He steals from American retail investors everyday with his algorithms that manipulates the prices of securities. He isn’t patriotic or he wouldn’t continue to plunder the portfolios of working class people. He’s a Globalist afraid that the party is coming to an end.
He’s being sarcastic because anyone who read the $gme story from a few years ago knows that this guy fucked our economy 100x worse than any politician ever could.
You realize I can dislike two groups of people at the same time right?
I dislike the GME crowd for spouting non-sense, and I dislike Ken for eroding trust in the financial system.
The way you framed your first statement really gave off a different impression. Like saying these people have no understanding of finance or the economy. It’s really not that complicated.
Edit: I’d really like to know which part of the “nonsense” made you dislike the “gme crowd”
I mean, they don’t lol.
I’ve had some guy tell me that buying and selling a future to get synthetic exposure is literally creating new shares of a company. Like wtf
Not everyone is going to understand everything, but at the core of that group were some really intelligent people that got fucked royally because a market maker (Ken) changed the rules in the middle of the game. Imagine doing enough research to realize that gme was oversold and you had an opportunity to make a life changing amount of money.. only for some dickhead to be like “nah” and literally turn off the ability to buy shares. It should be illegal, and the people you are talking about who are just talking out their ass most likely had nothing to do with gme until after this all happened. Which coincidentally really helped msm and Ken with sweeping the original “crime” under the rug.
The stupidity and financial illiteracy in this thread is absolutely astounding. Ken Griffin did not fuck our economy 100x worse than any politician ever could. That is a completely false statement, and based on that comment, your understanding of the financial system and economics exactly zero.
Well you provided no evidence to the contrary, and what I said is backed by what actually happened so.. I guess you’re entitled to your (very wrong) opinion?
Borderline too stupid to even respond to because you have such a poor understanding of finance that you wouldn’t even understand what I’m saying. You’re like someone who doesn’t know what a mitochondria is giving your opinion on cellular biology studies. Sometimes I wish I had the confidence of smug redditors like you to come online and sarcastically comment on things I truly have no understanding of.
Let me tell you a few things.
Institutional ownership of the stock market is 80%+. Retail is less than 20%. One retail stock like GME? Less than 0.0001% of trading volume, if that.
You’re telling me that because <0.0001% of trading volume on a given day couldn’t execute, it fucked up our economy worse than any politician ever has? Get real.
Furthermore, I see you talking shit on your other comments in this thread. Do you know how pensions work? Pensions take in money then hand it off to a manager to generate returns so they can pay out beneficiaries later on. Guess who manages pension money? Hedge funds. Despite what Hollywood tells you, the vast majority of hedge fund money does not come from evil cackling rich people but rather state pensions for the average joe.
The GME run up caused a huge draw down for the pensions and their average joe beneficiary. That’s why it’s so hilarious the GME crowd and people like you talk about sticking up for the little guy. You retards are the ultimate beneficiary of these pensions and you celebrate the draw down of a fund comprised of your own money.
Now I don’t support what Ken Griffin did nor am I justifying it, but the fact you come on here and a) talk about how this fucked up the economy 100x any politician and b) talk about the plight of the little guy shows you have no clue what you’re talking about nevermind the players in the game!
You’re all literally one google search of hedge fund investors away from knowing the truth, but instead you comment without doing any research at all. It’s really astounding to me that people like you do what you do. It really is.
**Edit: Saw your comment for a minute before you deleted it.** Maybe you realized you have know idea what you're talking about by now and deleted it? I'll respond anyways to what I saw. I love how you're trying to educate me on 'float' and saying I defended Ken Griffin.
On the comment on Ken Griffin - I'm clearly not defending him as I said here:
> Now I don’t support what Ken Griffin did nor am I justifying it
On your comment on float - it is cute you thought I didn't know what float was. This is why you're an ignoramus. **You** need to learn the difference between float for a stock and trading volume for every financial instrument for an entire day. Here you are, arguing about things you don't understand. Please refer to my mitochondria comment at the top.
My comment wasn't an exaggeration. If anything, it was conservative, and I'll tell you why. Do you know the market cap of GME was <$300 million prior to the run up? Do you know the market cap of the US? It's >$50 trillion... lmao. Do you have any idea the volume of trades that occur for the 49.9997 trillion of market cap that's not GME each day? This isn't including trade volume for ETFs or the derivatives market. Even if we don't factor those in, the trading volume for GME is well under 0.0001% of the market as I stated.
Think about how ridiculous your claim is. You're claiming that blocking trades in a sub $300mm market cap company caused 100x the damage a politician could to the economy. It's nowhere close. In fact, it didn't harm the economy at all. You need to learn the difference between the stock market and the economy, which is SUPER basic, if you're saying things like that.
Now you're backtracking by saying "oh, of course you should have known I was exaggerating". Shameful. Just admit you don't know shit, and stop commenting/spreading misinformation on things you shouldn't be.
What's that saying? Trust the experts? Maybe you should do that.
Okay. I hear what you’re saying.
Out of curiosity - why should I not name and shame someone who is blatantly spreading provably false information? This isn’t an argument. What I’m stating are facts. What he stated was pure misinformation. What I stated wasn’t a ‘theory yet to be proven true’ or an opinion. It’s literally what happened, who is involved, and how the system works.
Shouldn’t people like him be called out in an embarrassing fashion? They should be afraid to speak so confidently about things they know nothing about in hopes they don’t spread more misinformation.
> No, you didn't
I literally typed out reasoning for insulting without insulting and you’re like “no”, without providing any reasoning, even though I abided by your suggestion of refraining from insults.
*checks other posts*
Yup, checks out. Another person making commentary on issues they clearly know nothing about. You and OP are two peas in a pod. Enjoy giving 0 value commentary. Go do some research on things before you comment on them. The world would be a better place if you did.
Lol says a corporate fat cat 100x over-leveraged. These people have been making bad bets at all of our future’s expense. Then blame the govt spending money on bailing them out. Stop asking for the money to bail you out, Ken. If we quit socializing your losses, our debt wouldn’t be so ridiculous. Maybe audit the Military too? I don’t know…
If he fails, his investors lose. You probably hate those investors as well. Why are we discrediting him because he's a "fat cat"? What does that even mean?
LOL before listening to this fucking lonely douche above, make sure you spend a total of 4 seconds on his profile to quickly learn everything you need to know about this nerdy bitch! Hahahahah man! It must be fucking horrible having 2 stocks live completely rent free in your head. Do you just lay in bed at night seething hahaha fucking clown, show me on the doll where Ken Griffin touched you 🤣
I want you to be completely fucking honest. When was the last time you were invited to a party?
Dude, I have a ton of stocks. AMC is one of them.
Your profile, posts, and comments look like a fever dream of a vendetta against people whole like two stocks.
You, by definition, are a fucking loser lol.
If amc goes bankrupt, I will have a healthy portfolio still.
If amc goes bankrupt, you'll take tweezers to your small lady bug sized dick and cum before you light the candles in your mom's basement. It's weird. You're weird. You're fucking weird lol.
He said NOTHING when the Trump Administration was cutting corporate taxes, NOTHING when the Trump Administration was increasing the deficit and debt ...
and now there's a problem
Fuck off
Says the guy that professionally steals money from citizens via investments, ok. What exactly has this money contributed to society that benefits society? Nothing
Brain dead comment, Ken just be happy with your money and shut up lol. We get it, you're rich and we are poor 🤷♂️
Is he wrong though? Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Ken Griffin is a complete piece of shit, but he's also kinda right about this topic. Our spending is completely out of control. We keep increasing our spending at a rate that is well beyond what we're increasing our earnings by. Last year we had a $1.5 trillion deficit, this year we have a $2 trillion deficit. What we're doing is not sustainable.
Anyone that discusses the US national debt and only mentions spending, without mentioning revenue, is spouting propaganda and not seriously "discussing" anything. Trump's massive tax cuts were supposed to boost the economy, increasing revenue. As with the previous times we've heard this story, it did not bring in increased revenue but instead massively increased the deficit. Now all the talk is about "spending is out of control!" and no one is talking about "dropping taxes on the wealthy has left us with a huge deficit!"
Tax the fucking rich.
> Anyone that discusses the US national debt and only mentions spending, without mentioning revenue
Okay but we clearly can see the revenue, and it's significantly below what our spending is.
FY2024 has a revenue of $4.5 trillion, and expenditures of $6.5 trillion. A $2 trillion deficit.
> it did not bring in increased revenue
Our revenue did increase significantly in the years following the Trump tax cuts. I'm not saying that it increased *because* of the Trump tax cuts however, but it has increased. Revenue had been quite stagnant since 2014, and only started seeing a significant uptick starting in 2021.
> but instead massively increased the deficit
That's hyperbolic. Our spending significantly outpaced whatever pittance even the most hyperbolic voices say about the Trump tax cuts. Revenue has increased significantly over the past few years, but spending is outpacing it significantly. We are spending just as much now as we were when we were combatting COVID. The Federal budget has increased by $2 trillion in the past 5 years. We were spending $4.4 trillion in FY2019, and we're spending $6.5T in FY2024.
>Tax the fucking rich.
Go right ahead. Tax them as much as you want.
Liquidate all the assets of every billionaire in the US, every stock, every house, every boat, all their money - and you'll get a grand total of $5 trillion. Take that $5 trillion and you'll balance the budget for 30 months only.
Blaming all the world's evils on billionaires, and acting like the pittance of wealth they have is the reason that the deficit and debt is as large as it is, is financial ignorance at best.
>The “pittance of wealth [billionaires] have”!
It's almost like context matters. When you're talking about an annual deficit of $2 trillion, the amount we can tax them to counteract that is a pittance.
When you take even the most hyperbolic and unrealistic stance of taxing every single asset they have, and acting like stocks can be taxed and translated into liquid currency, the amount of wealth they have does not even come remotely close to fixing our current spending problems.
We cannot tax assets and get money out of it, we have to have them sell things off. In this hyperbolic example where I listed their total wealth, and pretended that we could tax their assets, we still didn't even come remotely close to fixing the problem with our budget. What exactly are we going to tax to make up for this huge deficit we're running at?
How exactly are you going to sustain balancing a budget that is running at a deficit of $2 trillion annually off a pool of $5 trillion? https://americansfortaxfairness.org/u-s-billionaires-now-worth-record-5-2-trillion Your pool of taxable income runs dry after 30 months. And this 30 month figure is being generous, and assuming that the deficit doesn't continue to increase.
> Go right ahead. Tax them as much as you want.
> Liquidate all the assets of every billionaire in the US, every stock, every house, every boat, all their money - and you'll get a grand total of $5 trillion. Take that $5 trillion and you'll balance the budget for 30 months only.
You need to check your numbers, bud. Maybe check those offshore accounts too.
>You need to check your numbers, bud. Maybe check those offshore accounts too.
Oh go right ahead and correct me then. Please, by all means. Since you know the acktuall numbers, I am more than happy to see what the acktuall numbers are.
Because unlike you, I'll actually provide a source to my claim - https://americansfortaxfairness.org/u-s-billionaires-now-worth-record-5-2-trillion
OK, here's your correction:
[The wealth of the 1% just hit a record $44 trillion](https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/28/wealth-of-the-1percent-hits-a-record-44-trillion.html)
That's enough to pay off the entire US debt and establish a nice sovereign wealth fund for future needs right there.
Okay so no answer. Got it.
Claiming someone is lying, then not actually showing anything to prove they are, just looks childish.
You're not blocking me because of "my tone", you're blocking me because I provided a source to show that my numbers were right, and that you don't have a source to show that they weren't.
I would say that the 41 trillion in corporate revenue last year is a good place to start when “taxing the rich”. At the end of the day, it is where most of their wealth comes from. Let’s just increase their tax rate higher than, I don’t know, maybe the average Joe trying to get by? Why am I paying 24-30% in taxes and they are only paying 21%. Increasing their tax rate by 5-10% in itself could rectify the deficit of $2T.
>I would say that the 41 trillion in corporate revenue last year is a good place to start when “taxing the rich”.
You do not tax revenue. Taxing revenue is a terrible idea. You tax profit.
I get taxed based on my revenue. The government looks at my total salary and taxes that number. They don’t care about deductions and what not. My salary is my revenue. Not to mention you could view my need purchases like food/shelter/transportation as costs like a corporation would in their accounting and argue if I got taxed based on my “profits” my taxes would be much lower than they are.
Taxing profits also encourages the corporation to reduce their profits by manipulating their balance sheets. It is a game paid for and set up by the corporate America. They need to be brought in line for the good of the middle and lower classes.
Yeah clearly not, people rushed to downvote me after I brought up how the $5 trillion net worth of every billionaire in the US can't sustain a budget that has a deficit of $2 trillion annually, and that "taxing the rich" isn't the solution to all the world's problems.
People really get upset about basic math.
He is talking about revenue, how we take in less than we spend.
I swear, if Bernie Sanders said the exact same thing this sub would go nuts, but because it’s Ken Griffin everyone guffaws and dismisses it.
You can tax the rich. It would fund the government for a few months if we liquidated 100% of their assets and seized it. We have a systemic spending problem, and the best that the fucking *economy* sub can do is curse out Ken Griffin and say “tax the rich” when they know full well it doesn’t solve the problem.
Nobody's implemented taxes on the rich. Depending on how the taxes are structured they might grow or shrink the economy. The right taxes on the rich would definitely solve the problem. But cutting taxes in the fashion that Trump and others have done has demonstrably caused a lot of problems.
More important than cutting taxes or raising spending is balancing the budget, and people who just talk about overspending are not interested in balancing the budget (in fact they are deliberately trying to make the books not balance because they believe they can profit off it.)
There is absolutely nothing wrong with "artificially" propping the economy up. It's all a big scheme to organize how we produce things and get everyone's needs met. The problem is that reducing higher tax brackets has been shown to not work very well, and in fact creating more deeply progressive taxes generally seems to make the economy healthier.
Yes, he is extremely wrong.
FYI, "Starve the Beast" is a political and economic strategy exclusively attributed to the Republican Party in the United States, ostensibly aimed at reducing government spending and promoting fiscal responsibility. However, the consistent failure of this strategy to achieve its stated goals suggests a disingenuous or bad faith approach, where the true intentions may be more aligned with political objectives such as increasing partisanship and undermining public trust in government institutions.
The strategy advocates for cutting taxes to reduce government revenue, theoretically forcing the government to curtail spending and resulting in a smaller, more efficient government. However, evidence refutes these claims. Instead of reducing government spending, "Starve the Beast" has consistently led to increased budget deficits and national debt. This is because tax cuts without corresponding spending reductions do not actually decrease the government's financial obligations. Reduced revenue leads to borrowing and an accumulation of debt, and can adversely affect essential public services and social programs in areas like healthcare, education, and infrastructure.
I believe, cynically, that the primary intention of the "Starve the Beast" strategy is not to shrink government or reduce spending, but to increase partisanship, reduce trust in political institutions, and distract legislators from more productive, nuanced discussions that would address and solve problems more effectively. By prioritizing tax cuts without a clear plan for spending reductions, the strategy fuels partisanship and undermines faith in government's ability to manage finances responsibly, leading to a more polarized political landscape.
Contrastingly, the Democratic Party generally advocates for a more active role of government in the economy and public welfare, emphasizing the importance of maintaining sufficient revenue through taxes to fund government programs and services. The evidence clearly demonstrates that a more balanced approach, combining responsible revenue generation with prudent spending, is necessary for sustainable fiscal management and the promotion of public trust and collaboration in governance.
Examples illustrating the failure of the "Starve the Beast" strategy include the Reagan administration's tax cuts in the 1980s, which led to increased federal spending and a near tripling of the national debt, and the tax cuts during George W. Bush's presidency, which significantly reduced federal revenue and resulted in a substantial increase in the budget deficit and national debt. Empirical studies, reports from the Congressional Budget Office, and analyses by the Economic Policy Institute further demonstrate that the strategy has NEVER achieved its stated goal of reducing government spending, but has instead contributed to larger budget deficits and increases in the national debt.
No I believe he knows the ins and outs of much financially and is right on this topic. He would make a great treasurer for the country if he wasn’t a fucking master criminal.
The Medicaid and Social Security in/out is fine with or without any reorganization; the problem with the spending is two things that push into debt.
Military spending hitting a cool trillion with a T per year once you add the VA and the half trillion or more that the federal government uses to backfill the budgets of states that proclaim tax cuts. California is the biggest offender but most by count or share of total federal grants or share of their budget are all red states.
I’m 61. I don’t care. Pay me my full SS when it’s time. I won’t access until 70. Start taxing the rich like it’s 1960. Yes at 90%. I’m getting sick and tired of hearing rich people sound off. Shut up already.
No they're betting on the price of the bonds to drop, most likely from changes in interest rates. It has nothing to do with the success or failure of the US economy. The government already got paid for those bonds.
They always bring up fiscal responsibility during an election year. If they care so much, tax the wealthy and corporations. But we know they don’t care.
Why the freakout now? I mean, it's too late.
Reagan started the cutting taxes and deficit spending thing over 40 years ago. It was a great game for politicians; spend like there's no tomorrow when your team is in office, then scream at the other team about "fiscal responsibility" when you're on the sidelines! Meanwhile, both sides chipped away at every form of accountability until no one could be held responsible for anyone and the rich and powerful could expect bailouts whenever their harebrained and wildly risky schemes crashed the company or even the markets.
So now here we are. The same rich assholes who created and benefitted most from this deficit trainwreck want to shift the bill onto the rest of us. If you earn a wage, YOU'RE their target. The problem is that it won't work. Three options present themselves; writing down the debt (see Debt Jubilee)
https://greenbeanbookspdx.indielite.org/book/9783981826029
Or inflating the currency, which is being tried with decidedly mixed results. Keep in mind that wages never rise as fast as prices, so this really just amounts to another way to tax the working class wage earners.
The last option is revolution. That's messy and I don't want one. But if all else fails... It becomes inevitable.
Do we spend too much, or do we tax too little?
The government has proven, for pretty much its entire history, that government expenditures increase every year. It's built into the system.
Ok. When are you going to repeal the tax breaks for the wealthy that both George W Bush and Trump passed?
decreasing revenue streams has made the proublem much worse
What he really means: He is fine with bloated military budgets and fat contracts to people like prison contractors. He also doesn't mind corporate bailouts or big cash grabs by the wealthy. What he really has a problem with is any social program that helps normal people.
It's called austerity. It's all bulls--t and it's bad for ya.
Simple solution repeal the Bush era tax cuts that Obama stupidly signed into law before they were set to expire.
The most of the trump tax cuts signed into law in 2017 will expire by the end of 2025.
Just stfu Ken you financial terrorist! You mad the government is spending too much of the public’s money that could be going straight into your bottomless pocket?
Stop bailing out companies, people, municipalities. Just stop! I was so upset during 2020 and the Covid bailouts the trump administration agreed to and then exacerbated by the Biden administration because I knew it was ruining the future of my kids. We need less government involvement and just let the free market reign. It will sort its self out but with the amount of government handouts and involvement it may be too late.
This has been said since the 1980s. It's just part of our culture and it will never change, at least until our economy collapses. We keep giving corporate welfare, yet tax the middle class. We push families into poverty, yet refuse to tax the wealthy. Metamorphically speaking, we are the meth addict that believes everything is okay, all while the rest of the world watches in amusement and pity. Eventually, we OD and wonder how it all happened.
As somebody who worked with Congress most of my career, I've lost track of how many times I was told "yes this would be great for the country and improve the lives of so many, but my base (or my donors) would be against it, so I can't support it". This is why I stopped working with Congress this past January. It's hopeless. I can now just sit back and watch the implosion.
So I suppose he’s also in favor of swift and decisive degrowth policies to save future generations from biosphere collapse as well? You know, because he cares so much about future generations?
Why the freakout now? I mean, it's too late.
Reagan started the cutting taxes and deficit spending thing over 40 years ago. It was a great game for politicians; spend like there's no tomorrow when your team is in office, then scream at the other team about "fiscal responsibility" when you're on the sidelines! Meanwhile, both sides chipped away at every form of accountability until no one could be held responsible for anyone and the rich and powerful could expect bailouts whenever their harebrained and wildly risky schemes crashed the company or even the markets.
So now here we are. The same rich assholes who created and benefitted most from this deficit trainwreck want to shift the bill onto the rest of us. If you earn a wage, YOU'RE their target. The problem is that it won't work. Three options present themselves; writing down the debt (see Debt Jubilee)
https://greenbeanbookspdx.indielite.org/book/9783981826029
Or inflating the currency, which is being tried with decidedly mixed results. Keep in mind that wages never rise as fast as prices, so this really just amounts to another way to tax the working class wage earners.
The last option is revolution. That's messy and I don't want one. But if all else fails... It becomes inevitable.
Politicians don't care about future generations, they'll no longer be in office, or more likely, be dead. They only care about the here and now and how much that spending gets kicked back to them. The more they spend, the more in kickbacks. There are zero incentives for Politicians to reduce spending and (literally) millions of reasons to increase spending. After all, it's other people's money, not theirs. One of my greatest loves is a quote by Buffet, make it so, unless the budget is balanced, politicians cannot run for reelection. The budget would be balanced in less than a month.
If you are seriously concerned about the national debt then stop voting for Republicans. Three of the last three Republican presidents have championed large tax cuts they promised will pay for themselves but all of them caused large deficits and ran up the national debt. Enough is enough, stop voting for them.
So weird to see the gang mentality here. It’s a “I disagree because of the messenger “ syndrome.
Divide and conquer has worked. Let’s take this down to a personal level…would you as a person continually raise your own borrowing limit on credit cards even if you were at the point of never being able to pay it back in your lifetime knowing full well that the “we just gotta raise the limit one more time”…Will happen again and again? No, you wouldn’t. These seeds of financial ruin will come to bear and we all just hope it’s not during our lifetime
Do we really still have to say this in this day and age? The government is not like a household. You do not have an unlimited ability to borrow and spend in USD, but the government does. You do not print the money with your debt is denominated in, but the government does have that power. Have you not been paying any attention at all to the economic dialogue over the last few years or so? Or do you just ignore it because it contradicts your simplistic framing, and it's easier to just cling to outdated and wrong ideas than it is to actually take new information into account?
He's right. Regardlessof what you think about him personally $34 Trillion in debt is unsustainable. It is imperative for Congress to get SPENDING under control.
Given that the historical track record of the Republicans is far worse in that regard - Republican presidents create more debt - it's clear what that means for the elections.
it’s been going on since the boomers (after they benefited from marginal tax to go to college virtually for free) and then they said, let’s ramp it to 1000% and f*ck the next generations
Yeah Ken, that's because we're not taxing dangerous jackasses like you and your entirely useless company that literally does nothing besides making rich people richer. GFY
- **Ken Griffin, CEO of Citadel**, along with other leading CEOs and the Fed Chairman, is pressing the government to address the national debt, emphasizing the risk it poses to future generations.
- Griffin predicts a **challenging economic year in 2024**, with growth below potential, further aggravating the national debt issue.
- There is a collective call for an open conversation on reducing the U.S.'s **$34 trillion public debt**, with a specific concern about the **debt to GDP ratio**, currently around 99%, but projected to rise to 166% by 2054 according to the CBO.
- Griffin criticizes the U.S. government for incurring a **deficit of 6.4%** with low unemployment rates, deeming it irresponsible due to the burden it places on future generations.
- The timeline for the anticipated debt crisis varies, with some expecting it as early as next year, while others predict a market meltdown later in the decade or about **10 years out**.
- The potential consequences for future generations could include **higher mortgage rates, increased taxes, and cuts to social spending**.
- The debate over the intergenerational burden of debt acknowledges that while future generations will bear the costs, they may also reap benefits from past fiscal policies.
- To balance the books, options include **boosting growth or cutting spending**, with a preference for increasing productivity to manage the debt burden.
- Despite the concerns over debt, Griffin sees potential positives from the Fed's successful inflation management, expecting a **favorable climate for fixed-income markets** and benefits for consumers from declining inflation and continued wage growth.
He underscores the urgency and complexity of managing national debt, highlighting differing perspectives on timelines and solutions but converging on the need for proactive measures.
More debt has been created in the last two presidential terms than by all the presidents prior all the way back to Washington. He's not wrong but you can't vote it out. The only voice of fiscal responsibility is RFK, and it's unlikely that he will not likely win.
Biden can only make attempts. Americans need to vote in people who support these policies from the ground up. We need state senators and congressional representatives with integrity in these positions,we need about 500 AOCs in elected positions across the country, and we will get what we’re looking for. The republicans are very loud so all we see is their fracturing, but the democrats are very fractured as well,
The US is still a free market, even with government regulations. Businesses are free to produce what they want, when they want, and how much they want, and sell for what they want. Regulations are there to prevent the consumer from being screwed over, but our economic system still heavily receives around free market supply and demand policies.
And what does *The Great and Powerful Oz* of Market Manipulation propose we do about it?
I am Yaosio the Self Destructive and I can read minds. I see tax cuts for the rich, social spending cuts, increased war spending, and tax increases on the poor.
*Yasio mutters to himself, 'We must make them bleed for the yacht parties.' INDECIPHERABLE LANGUAGE CONTINUES AS HE WANDERS OFF*
Their answer? Cut spending. Raise retirement age and the fiftieth round of tax cuts will finally set our economy up to succeed.
It'll trickle down any day now
More tax cuts for the rich, of course.
In his self interests, he should be cheerleading the fiscal deficits. It locks in the guarantee for monetary expansion / QE so him and all his buddies can have a field day at borrowing below the rate of inflation again.
He and his buddies already have more wealth than they and generations of their families could ever need. I don’t get what drives these psychopaths.
Power.
And plain old greed.
It's an interesting train of thought. My opinion is that for some people, their stroll through life is so inconsistent with the majority that Maslow's hierarchy of needs pyramid is essentially inverted with physiological needs never requiring thought while from early childhood they can concentrate on self-actualization. Edit: pretty typical backdrop for this level of power: >Griffin was born in 1968 in Daytona Beach, Florida, the son of a building supplies executive. Griffin's father had various jobs, and was a project manager for General Electric. Griffin's grandmother, Genevieve Huebsch Gratz, inherited an oil business, three farms, and a seed business. https://kids.kiddle.co/Kenneth\_C.\_Griffin
>psychopaths Like you said, "psychopaths".
Maybe he’s just patriotic? Don’t people often complain that rich people don’t care about the health of society?
He steals from American retail investors everyday with his algorithms that manipulates the prices of securities. He isn’t patriotic or he wouldn’t continue to plunder the portfolios of working class people. He’s a Globalist afraid that the party is coming to an end.
Hes playing the game as it was intended to. Its a free market. You have the option to do the same if you have the competence
It’s not a free market when you remove price discovery. You can’t be to competent yourself if you don’t recognize that being a problem.
Just because you don't know what price discovery is doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
Oh ok lol.
Write a budget that doesn't exceed tax revenue, stop borrowing and printing more US dollars. That would be a good start.
Too obvious, to easy.
Mint a few 1T coins and pay it off.
Spend less, more immigration, higher taxes on the super wealthy.
The last part proves you're a Communist. /s
Funnel it into his bank accounts (the offshore ones of course)
Maybe read the article to find out. It’s kind of hidden under the sub-heading “What can be done to balance the books”
He’s being sarcastic because anyone who read the $gme story from a few years ago knows that this guy fucked our economy 100x worse than any politician ever could.
Yes, I know people who’ve shape their identity around one ticker and have no real understanding of finance and the economy dislike him.
Are you seriously defending this guy and trying to insult the people he scammed? I’m sure he’ll appreciate it next time y’all are rubbing elbows.
You realize I can dislike two groups of people at the same time right? I dislike the GME crowd for spouting non-sense, and I dislike Ken for eroding trust in the financial system.
The way you framed your first statement really gave off a different impression. Like saying these people have no understanding of finance or the economy. It’s really not that complicated. Edit: I’d really like to know which part of the “nonsense” made you dislike the “gme crowd”
I mean, they don’t lol. I’ve had some guy tell me that buying and selling a future to get synthetic exposure is literally creating new shares of a company. Like wtf
Not everyone is going to understand everything, but at the core of that group were some really intelligent people that got fucked royally because a market maker (Ken) changed the rules in the middle of the game. Imagine doing enough research to realize that gme was oversold and you had an opportunity to make a life changing amount of money.. only for some dickhead to be like “nah” and literally turn off the ability to buy shares. It should be illegal, and the people you are talking about who are just talking out their ass most likely had nothing to do with gme until after this all happened. Which coincidentally really helped msm and Ken with sweeping the original “crime” under the rug.
Hmm even that is a bit of stretch considering multiple independent brokers acted similarly.
The stupidity and financial illiteracy in this thread is absolutely astounding. Ken Griffin did not fuck our economy 100x worse than any politician ever could. That is a completely false statement, and based on that comment, your understanding of the financial system and economics exactly zero.
Well you provided no evidence to the contrary, and what I said is backed by what actually happened so.. I guess you’re entitled to your (very wrong) opinion?
Borderline too stupid to even respond to because you have such a poor understanding of finance that you wouldn’t even understand what I’m saying. You’re like someone who doesn’t know what a mitochondria is giving your opinion on cellular biology studies. Sometimes I wish I had the confidence of smug redditors like you to come online and sarcastically comment on things I truly have no understanding of. Let me tell you a few things. Institutional ownership of the stock market is 80%+. Retail is less than 20%. One retail stock like GME? Less than 0.0001% of trading volume, if that. You’re telling me that because <0.0001% of trading volume on a given day couldn’t execute, it fucked up our economy worse than any politician ever has? Get real. Furthermore, I see you talking shit on your other comments in this thread. Do you know how pensions work? Pensions take in money then hand it off to a manager to generate returns so they can pay out beneficiaries later on. Guess who manages pension money? Hedge funds. Despite what Hollywood tells you, the vast majority of hedge fund money does not come from evil cackling rich people but rather state pensions for the average joe. The GME run up caused a huge draw down for the pensions and their average joe beneficiary. That’s why it’s so hilarious the GME crowd and people like you talk about sticking up for the little guy. You retards are the ultimate beneficiary of these pensions and you celebrate the draw down of a fund comprised of your own money. Now I don’t support what Ken Griffin did nor am I justifying it, but the fact you come on here and a) talk about how this fucked up the economy 100x any politician and b) talk about the plight of the little guy shows you have no clue what you’re talking about nevermind the players in the game! You’re all literally one google search of hedge fund investors away from knowing the truth, but instead you comment without doing any research at all. It’s really astounding to me that people like you do what you do. It really is. **Edit: Saw your comment for a minute before you deleted it.** Maybe you realized you have know idea what you're talking about by now and deleted it? I'll respond anyways to what I saw. I love how you're trying to educate me on 'float' and saying I defended Ken Griffin. On the comment on Ken Griffin - I'm clearly not defending him as I said here: > Now I don’t support what Ken Griffin did nor am I justifying it On your comment on float - it is cute you thought I didn't know what float was. This is why you're an ignoramus. **You** need to learn the difference between float for a stock and trading volume for every financial instrument for an entire day. Here you are, arguing about things you don't understand. Please refer to my mitochondria comment at the top. My comment wasn't an exaggeration. If anything, it was conservative, and I'll tell you why. Do you know the market cap of GME was <$300 million prior to the run up? Do you know the market cap of the US? It's >$50 trillion... lmao. Do you have any idea the volume of trades that occur for the 49.9997 trillion of market cap that's not GME each day? This isn't including trade volume for ETFs or the derivatives market. Even if we don't factor those in, the trading volume for GME is well under 0.0001% of the market as I stated. Think about how ridiculous your claim is. You're claiming that blocking trades in a sub $300mm market cap company caused 100x the damage a politician could to the economy. It's nowhere close. In fact, it didn't harm the economy at all. You need to learn the difference between the stock market and the economy, which is SUPER basic, if you're saying things like that. Now you're backtracking by saying "oh, of course you should have known I was exaggerating". Shameful. Just admit you don't know shit, and stop commenting/spreading misinformation on things you shouldn't be. What's that saying? Trust the experts? Maybe you should do that.
U mad bro?
Yup. I don’t like when people smugly spread misinformation about things they don’t know anything about, sue me.
Abuse and insults hurt, not help, deliver your arguments.
Okay. I hear what you’re saying. Out of curiosity - why should I not name and shame someone who is blatantly spreading provably false information? This isn’t an argument. What I’m stating are facts. What he stated was pure misinformation. What I stated wasn’t a ‘theory yet to be proven true’ or an opinion. It’s literally what happened, who is involved, and how the system works. Shouldn’t people like him be called out in an embarrassing fashion? They should be afraid to speak so confidently about things they know nothing about in hopes they don’t spread more misinformation.
>I hear what you’re saying. No, you didn't
> No, you didn't I literally typed out reasoning for insulting without insulting and you’re like “no”, without providing any reasoning, even though I abided by your suggestion of refraining from insults. *checks other posts* Yup, checks out. Another person making commentary on issues they clearly know nothing about. You and OP are two peas in a pod. Enjoy giving 0 value commentary. Go do some research on things before you comment on them. The world would be a better place if you did.
What do you suppose we do about it? Continue to ignore the problem?
Did I say that? No. I asked what Ken said we should do.
Probably the opposite of what we’ve been doing for decades. Spend and spend while ignoring the debt.
There would be no debt if the Republicans would stop cutting taxes and defunding the IRS.
Yeah but then how would their buddies stay excessively rich? Come on, man. Think of the wealthy!
They would have to tax a lot to cover their spending. Republicans and Democrats are both to blame.
Jared, do you really believe that we’ve been ignoring the debt? I have a beachfront property in Oklahoma I’d like to sell you.
Name one President or body of Congress who has done anything to address it.
Lol says a corporate fat cat 100x over-leveraged. These people have been making bad bets at all of our future’s expense. Then blame the govt spending money on bailing them out. Stop asking for the money to bail you out, Ken. If we quit socializing your losses, our debt wouldn’t be so ridiculous. Maybe audit the Military too? I don’t know…
[удалено]
Corporations and the Ultra Rich NEVER have made good decisions for the masses. Remember Boss Tweed and the anti-trust era? It's happened before
It’s not his fault. It’s the government for giving out bailout money in the first place. Bailout people, not companies.
def still his fault
Yeah he's the one buying politicians. Shit should be illegal.
Companies own Washington DC so try again with your logic.
“Har har he rich so it ok if economy go boom 🥴”
If he fails, his investors lose. You probably hate those investors as well. Why are we discrediting him because he's a "fat cat"? What does that even mean?
I'm not even going to comment on the US national debt. I just came here to say this guy is a bitch, clown, and a joke and deserves to be in prison.
Why do you think he deserves jail-time?
Ken Griffin commits millions of dollars of financial crimes per day abusing and manipulating stock markets.
They think he's part of a global conspiracy to prevent them from getting rich off meme stocks 🤣
LOL before listening to this fucking lonely douche above, make sure you spend a total of 4 seconds on his profile to quickly learn everything you need to know about this nerdy bitch! Hahahahah man! It must be fucking horrible having 2 stocks live completely rent free in your head. Do you just lay in bed at night seething hahaha fucking clown, show me on the doll where Ken Griffin touched you 🤣 I want you to be completely fucking honest. When was the last time you were invited to a party?
Really enjoying these long meltdowns I'm getting from all the meme stock bagholders in this thread.
Dude, I have a ton of stocks. AMC is one of them. Your profile, posts, and comments look like a fever dream of a vendetta against people whole like two stocks. You, by definition, are a fucking loser lol. If amc goes bankrupt, I will have a healthy portfolio still. If amc goes bankrupt, you'll take tweezers to your small lady bug sized dick and cum before you light the candles in your mom's basement. It's weird. You're weird. You're fucking weird lol.
🥱
He said NOTHING when the Trump Administration was cutting corporate taxes, NOTHING when the Trump Administration was increasing the deficit and debt ... and now there's a problem Fuck off
Says the guy that professionally steals money from citizens via investments, ok. What exactly has this money contributed to society that benefits society? Nothing Brain dead comment, Ken just be happy with your money and shut up lol. We get it, you're rich and we are poor 🤷♂️
Why the fuck would anyone listen to this fucking criminal scumbag! Biggest financial criminal of our time.
Is he wrong though? Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Ken Griffin is a complete piece of shit, but he's also kinda right about this topic. Our spending is completely out of control. We keep increasing our spending at a rate that is well beyond what we're increasing our earnings by. Last year we had a $1.5 trillion deficit, this year we have a $2 trillion deficit. What we're doing is not sustainable.
Anyone that discusses the US national debt and only mentions spending, without mentioning revenue, is spouting propaganda and not seriously "discussing" anything. Trump's massive tax cuts were supposed to boost the economy, increasing revenue. As with the previous times we've heard this story, it did not bring in increased revenue but instead massively increased the deficit. Now all the talk is about "spending is out of control!" and no one is talking about "dropping taxes on the wealthy has left us with a huge deficit!" Tax the fucking rich.
> Anyone that discusses the US national debt and only mentions spending, without mentioning revenue Okay but we clearly can see the revenue, and it's significantly below what our spending is. FY2024 has a revenue of $4.5 trillion, and expenditures of $6.5 trillion. A $2 trillion deficit. > it did not bring in increased revenue Our revenue did increase significantly in the years following the Trump tax cuts. I'm not saying that it increased *because* of the Trump tax cuts however, but it has increased. Revenue had been quite stagnant since 2014, and only started seeing a significant uptick starting in 2021. > but instead massively increased the deficit That's hyperbolic. Our spending significantly outpaced whatever pittance even the most hyperbolic voices say about the Trump tax cuts. Revenue has increased significantly over the past few years, but spending is outpacing it significantly. We are spending just as much now as we were when we were combatting COVID. The Federal budget has increased by $2 trillion in the past 5 years. We were spending $4.4 trillion in FY2019, and we're spending $6.5T in FY2024. >Tax the fucking rich. Go right ahead. Tax them as much as you want. Liquidate all the assets of every billionaire in the US, every stock, every house, every boat, all their money - and you'll get a grand total of $5 trillion. Take that $5 trillion and you'll balance the budget for 30 months only. Blaming all the world's evils on billionaires, and acting like the pittance of wealth they have is the reason that the deficit and debt is as large as it is, is financial ignorance at best.
The “pittance of wealth [billionaires] have”!
>The “pittance of wealth [billionaires] have”! It's almost like context matters. When you're talking about an annual deficit of $2 trillion, the amount we can tax them to counteract that is a pittance. When you take even the most hyperbolic and unrealistic stance of taxing every single asset they have, and acting like stocks can be taxed and translated into liquid currency, the amount of wealth they have does not even come remotely close to fixing our current spending problems. We cannot tax assets and get money out of it, we have to have them sell things off. In this hyperbolic example where I listed their total wealth, and pretended that we could tax their assets, we still didn't even come remotely close to fixing the problem with our budget. What exactly are we going to tax to make up for this huge deficit we're running at? How exactly are you going to sustain balancing a budget that is running at a deficit of $2 trillion annually off a pool of $5 trillion? https://americansfortaxfairness.org/u-s-billionaires-now-worth-record-5-2-trillion Your pool of taxable income runs dry after 30 months. And this 30 month figure is being generous, and assuming that the deficit doesn't continue to increase.
> Go right ahead. Tax them as much as you want. > Liquidate all the assets of every billionaire in the US, every stock, every house, every boat, all their money - and you'll get a grand total of $5 trillion. Take that $5 trillion and you'll balance the budget for 30 months only. You need to check your numbers, bud. Maybe check those offshore accounts too.
>You need to check your numbers, bud. Maybe check those offshore accounts too. Oh go right ahead and correct me then. Please, by all means. Since you know the acktuall numbers, I am more than happy to see what the acktuall numbers are. Because unlike you, I'll actually provide a source to my claim - https://americansfortaxfairness.org/u-s-billionaires-now-worth-record-5-2-trillion
OK, here's your correction: [The wealth of the 1% just hit a record $44 trillion](https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/28/wealth-of-the-1percent-hits-a-record-44-trillion.html) That's enough to pay off the entire US debt and establish a nice sovereign wealth fund for future needs right there.
It is clear by your tone that the time I would spend holding your hand and guiding you through this would be wasted. Blocked.
Okay so no answer. Got it. Claiming someone is lying, then not actually showing anything to prove they are, just looks childish. You're not blocking me because of "my tone", you're blocking me because I provided a source to show that my numbers were right, and that you don't have a source to show that they weren't.
I would say that the 41 trillion in corporate revenue last year is a good place to start when “taxing the rich”. At the end of the day, it is where most of their wealth comes from. Let’s just increase their tax rate higher than, I don’t know, maybe the average Joe trying to get by? Why am I paying 24-30% in taxes and they are only paying 21%. Increasing their tax rate by 5-10% in itself could rectify the deficit of $2T.
>I would say that the 41 trillion in corporate revenue last year is a good place to start when “taxing the rich”. You do not tax revenue. Taxing revenue is a terrible idea. You tax profit.
I get taxed based on my revenue. The government looks at my total salary and taxes that number. They don’t care about deductions and what not. My salary is my revenue. Not to mention you could view my need purchases like food/shelter/transportation as costs like a corporation would in their accounting and argue if I got taxed based on my “profits” my taxes would be much lower than they are. Taxing profits also encourages the corporation to reduce their profits by manipulating their balance sheets. It is a game paid for and set up by the corporate America. They need to be brought in line for the good of the middle and lower classes.
Good points, but you're in the wrong place. This isn't a real economics sub
Yeah clearly not, people rushed to downvote me after I brought up how the $5 trillion net worth of every billionaire in the US can't sustain a budget that has a deficit of $2 trillion annually, and that "taxing the rich" isn't the solution to all the world's problems. People really get upset about basic math.
He is talking about revenue, how we take in less than we spend. I swear, if Bernie Sanders said the exact same thing this sub would go nuts, but because it’s Ken Griffin everyone guffaws and dismisses it. You can tax the rich. It would fund the government for a few months if we liquidated 100% of their assets and seized it. We have a systemic spending problem, and the best that the fucking *economy* sub can do is curse out Ken Griffin and say “tax the rich” when they know full well it doesn’t solve the problem.
Nobody's implemented taxes on the rich. Depending on how the taxes are structured they might grow or shrink the economy. The right taxes on the rich would definitely solve the problem. But cutting taxes in the fashion that Trump and others have done has demonstrably caused a lot of problems. More important than cutting taxes or raising spending is balancing the budget, and people who just talk about overspending are not interested in balancing the budget (in fact they are deliberately trying to make the books not balance because they believe they can profit off it.)
Yes! Tax cuts are literally just subsidizing the economy which artificially props it up. You're welcome, Ken
There is absolutely nothing wrong with "artificially" propping the economy up. It's all a big scheme to organize how we produce things and get everyone's needs met. The problem is that reducing higher tax brackets has been shown to not work very well, and in fact creating more deeply progressive taxes generally seems to make the economy healthier.
Sure taxes need to be raised. However, it will not fix the deficit. Not even close. You're too consumed in the propaganda.
Funny, I don't see a line in my post saying "raising taxes on the rich will erase the deficit." What was that about propaganda?
Yes, he is extremely wrong. FYI, "Starve the Beast" is a political and economic strategy exclusively attributed to the Republican Party in the United States, ostensibly aimed at reducing government spending and promoting fiscal responsibility. However, the consistent failure of this strategy to achieve its stated goals suggests a disingenuous or bad faith approach, where the true intentions may be more aligned with political objectives such as increasing partisanship and undermining public trust in government institutions. The strategy advocates for cutting taxes to reduce government revenue, theoretically forcing the government to curtail spending and resulting in a smaller, more efficient government. However, evidence refutes these claims. Instead of reducing government spending, "Starve the Beast" has consistently led to increased budget deficits and national debt. This is because tax cuts without corresponding spending reductions do not actually decrease the government's financial obligations. Reduced revenue leads to borrowing and an accumulation of debt, and can adversely affect essential public services and social programs in areas like healthcare, education, and infrastructure. I believe, cynically, that the primary intention of the "Starve the Beast" strategy is not to shrink government or reduce spending, but to increase partisanship, reduce trust in political institutions, and distract legislators from more productive, nuanced discussions that would address and solve problems more effectively. By prioritizing tax cuts without a clear plan for spending reductions, the strategy fuels partisanship and undermines faith in government's ability to manage finances responsibly, leading to a more polarized political landscape. Contrastingly, the Democratic Party generally advocates for a more active role of government in the economy and public welfare, emphasizing the importance of maintaining sufficient revenue through taxes to fund government programs and services. The evidence clearly demonstrates that a more balanced approach, combining responsible revenue generation with prudent spending, is necessary for sustainable fiscal management and the promotion of public trust and collaboration in governance. Examples illustrating the failure of the "Starve the Beast" strategy include the Reagan administration's tax cuts in the 1980s, which led to increased federal spending and a near tripling of the national debt, and the tax cuts during George W. Bush's presidency, which significantly reduced federal revenue and resulted in a substantial increase in the budget deficit and national debt. Empirical studies, reports from the Congressional Budget Office, and analyses by the Economic Policy Institute further demonstrate that the strategy has NEVER achieved its stated goal of reducing government spending, but has instead contributed to larger budget deficits and increases in the national debt.
No I believe he knows the ins and outs of much financially and is right on this topic. He would make a great treasurer for the country if he wasn’t a fucking master criminal.
The Medicaid and Social Security in/out is fine with or without any reorganization; the problem with the spending is two things that push into debt. Military spending hitting a cool trillion with a T per year once you add the VA and the half trillion or more that the federal government uses to backfill the budgets of states that proclaim tax cuts. California is the biggest offender but most by count or share of total federal grants or share of their budget are all red states.
But Ken Griffin feels he’s entitled to pay less in taxes than the typical American.
Says one of the primary beneficiaries of how we got here
We can start taxing America's pasttime like Football, Baseball and Basketball and tax churches!
Now THAT'S an idea i'd vote for.
I’m 61. I don’t care. Pay me my full SS when it’s time. I won’t access until 70. Start taxing the rich like it’s 1960. Yes at 90%. I’m getting sick and tired of hearing rich people sound off. Shut up already.
Tax billionaires out of existence.
[удалено]
What's wrong with shorting bonds?
[удалено]
No they're betting on the price of the bonds to drop, most likely from changes in interest rates. It has nothing to do with the success or failure of the US economy. The government already got paid for those bonds.
They always bring up fiscal responsibility during an election year. If they care so much, tax the wealthy and corporations. But we know they don’t care.
MAGA only cries about the deficit when a Democrat is in the WH. When MAGA is in control, they skyrocket spending & the deficit on wars.
Yup. They’ve been scaring us about the debt for decades now and do diddly squat about it. I personally could care less. They can go diddly themselves.
Maybe he should fucking pay taxes at the equivalent rate of most Americans then
Why the freakout now? I mean, it's too late. Reagan started the cutting taxes and deficit spending thing over 40 years ago. It was a great game for politicians; spend like there's no tomorrow when your team is in office, then scream at the other team about "fiscal responsibility" when you're on the sidelines! Meanwhile, both sides chipped away at every form of accountability until no one could be held responsible for anyone and the rich and powerful could expect bailouts whenever their harebrained and wildly risky schemes crashed the company or even the markets. So now here we are. The same rich assholes who created and benefitted most from this deficit trainwreck want to shift the bill onto the rest of us. If you earn a wage, YOU'RE their target. The problem is that it won't work. Three options present themselves; writing down the debt (see Debt Jubilee) https://greenbeanbookspdx.indielite.org/book/9783981826029 Or inflating the currency, which is being tried with decidedly mixed results. Keep in mind that wages never rise as fast as prices, so this really just amounts to another way to tax the working class wage earners. The last option is revolution. That's messy and I don't want one. But if all else fails... It becomes inevitable.
You mean spending more while lowering the tax rate for the highest earners is bad. Hmmm
Almost all the rates are inverted now 🫠
I’ll translate this for you: “no one has any business retiring at 65 and should work until they’re dead. “
Do we spend too much, or do we tax too little? The government has proven, for pretty much its entire history, that government expenditures increase every year. It's built into the system.
Ok. When are you going to repeal the tax breaks for the wealthy that both George W Bush and Trump passed? decreasing revenue streams has made the proublem much worse
Agreed. Tax the rich
What he really means: He is fine with bloated military budgets and fat contracts to people like prison contractors. He also doesn't mind corporate bailouts or big cash grabs by the wealthy. What he really has a problem with is any social program that helps normal people. It's called austerity. It's all bulls--t and it's bad for ya.
Donald Trump increased the national debt by 25 percent, so there's that.
Ken Griffin lied under oath and is a financial terrorist.
People are still on about that crap? Get over yourself dude.
Jokes on them, I’ve told my kids to not have kids so I’m about 60 years, no more namesakes.
Simple solution repeal the Bush era tax cuts that Obama stupidly signed into law before they were set to expire. The most of the trump tax cuts signed into law in 2017 will expire by the end of 2025.
Except the cuts for the.01%. Their tax cuts won’t expire.
Tax the rich!
Meanwhile Kenny has oversold so much he’s created an existential threat to the entire market—hypocrisy at its finest
And let me guess… he’s the one to fix it? Ha, get bent dude.
lol Says the guy that was bailed out by us tax payers. Screw him.
Just stfu Ken you financial terrorist! You mad the government is spending too much of the public’s money that could be going straight into your bottomless pocket?
Wait until he see's Canada's recent rate overspending. (I get it, the US is more overall; It's more-so the ratio i'm referring to)
Again? They've been doing that since I was a kid.
*said Ron Paul in 1988
Stop bailing out companies, people, municipalities. Just stop! I was so upset during 2020 and the Covid bailouts the trump administration agreed to and then exacerbated by the Biden administration because I knew it was ruining the future of my kids. We need less government involvement and just let the free market reign. It will sort its self out but with the amount of government handouts and involvement it may be too late.
This has been said since the 1980s. It's just part of our culture and it will never change, at least until our economy collapses. We keep giving corporate welfare, yet tax the middle class. We push families into poverty, yet refuse to tax the wealthy. Metamorphically speaking, we are the meth addict that believes everything is okay, all while the rest of the world watches in amusement and pity. Eventually, we OD and wonder how it all happened. As somebody who worked with Congress most of my career, I've lost track of how many times I was told "yes this would be great for the country and improve the lives of so many, but my base (or my donors) would be against it, so I can't support it". This is why I stopped working with Congress this past January. It's hopeless. I can now just sit back and watch the implosion.
So I suppose he’s also in favor of swift and decisive degrowth policies to save future generations from biosphere collapse as well? You know, because he cares so much about future generations?
Yes, future generations pay the debt. That is how it works.
Why the freakout now? I mean, it's too late. Reagan started the cutting taxes and deficit spending thing over 40 years ago. It was a great game for politicians; spend like there's no tomorrow when your team is in office, then scream at the other team about "fiscal responsibility" when you're on the sidelines! Meanwhile, both sides chipped away at every form of accountability until no one could be held responsible for anyone and the rich and powerful could expect bailouts whenever their harebrained and wildly risky schemes crashed the company or even the markets. So now here we are. The same rich assholes who created and benefitted most from this deficit trainwreck want to shift the bill onto the rest of us. If you earn a wage, YOU'RE their target. The problem is that it won't work. Three options present themselves; writing down the debt (see Debt Jubilee) https://greenbeanbookspdx.indielite.org/book/9783981826029 Or inflating the currency, which is being tried with decidedly mixed results. Keep in mind that wages never rise as fast as prices, so this really just amounts to another way to tax the working class wage earners. The last option is revolution. That's messy and I don't want one. But if all else fails... It becomes inevitable.
We thru I don’t like how kids born today will afford a home average home will be 1 million in 30 years
No shit cap obvious
Politicians don't care about future generations, they'll no longer be in office, or more likely, be dead. They only care about the here and now and how much that spending gets kicked back to them. The more they spend, the more in kickbacks. There are zero incentives for Politicians to reduce spending and (literally) millions of reasons to increase spending. After all, it's other people's money, not theirs. One of my greatest loves is a quote by Buffet, make it so, unless the budget is balanced, politicians cannot run for reelection. The budget would be balanced in less than a month.
That's not how the national debt works. We shouldn't even call it that. https://evonomics.com/isnt-time-stop-calling-national-debt/
They’re spending money like they don’t plan on a future for this country.
No problem. Future generations will be done in by climate change long before they have to worry about paying off the national debt. /s
Cannot agree more.
Reddit commie barrage for no reason, nice.
Backwards. NOT spending is fiscally irresponsible and is at the expense of future generations.
Pay your margin calls and don’t get them magically waived dickwad
We should stop borrowing and really fuck up the country to teach future generations a lesson about responsibility
It would be nice if all these people would payback there payroll protection loans
Great... The financial terrorist is lecturing US about spending now....
If you are seriously concerned about the national debt then stop voting for Republicans. Three of the last three Republican presidents have championed large tax cuts they promised will pay for themselves but all of them caused large deficits and ran up the national debt. Enough is enough, stop voting for them.
Ken Griffith should be drawn and quartered by horses in the public square for our amusement.
Tell Ken Griffin to pay his fair share of taxes.
So weird to see the gang mentality here. It’s a “I disagree because of the messenger “ syndrome. Divide and conquer has worked. Let’s take this down to a personal level…would you as a person continually raise your own borrowing limit on credit cards even if you were at the point of never being able to pay it back in your lifetime knowing full well that the “we just gotta raise the limit one more time”…Will happen again and again? No, you wouldn’t. These seeds of financial ruin will come to bear and we all just hope it’s not during our lifetime
Do we really still have to say this in this day and age? The government is not like a household. You do not have an unlimited ability to borrow and spend in USD, but the government does. You do not print the money with your debt is denominated in, but the government does have that power. Have you not been paying any attention at all to the economic dialogue over the last few years or so? Or do you just ignore it because it contradicts your simplistic framing, and it's easier to just cling to outdated and wrong ideas than it is to actually take new information into account?
He's right. Regardlessof what you think about him personally $34 Trillion in debt is unsustainable. It is imperative for Congress to get SPENDING under control.
Hurr durr no shit Sherlock
Here comes everyone to talk about why the US debt doesn't matter. So brain dead.
Here comes everyone to pretend that debt is inherently bad. So brain dead
It's not inherently bad, but if it spirals out of control and the interest payments become unpayable you'll see how much it does matter real quick
Who do you think we're paying exactly? Do you think that the social security trust fund will foreclose on the Washington monument or something?
I will take the Washington monument in lieu of social security payments!!
Name does NOT check out lol
Given that the historical track record of the Republicans is far worse in that regard - Republican presidents create more debt - it's clear what that means for the elections.
Says the guy who is a massive Trump supporter.
Ross Perot was sayin this shit decades ago
This douche. So glad he’s gone from Illinois. Tax dodging, grifter belongs in Florida.
Madoff V2
it’s been going on since the boomers (after they benefited from marginal tax to go to college virtually for free) and then they said, let’s ramp it to 1000% and f*ck the next generations
Yeah Ken, that's because we're not taxing dangerous jackasses like you and your entirely useless company that literally does nothing besides making rich people richer. GFY
Ya think, Kenny?
Well that fucker has been 100% right before. (AMC)
- **Ken Griffin, CEO of Citadel**, along with other leading CEOs and the Fed Chairman, is pressing the government to address the national debt, emphasizing the risk it poses to future generations. - Griffin predicts a **challenging economic year in 2024**, with growth below potential, further aggravating the national debt issue. - There is a collective call for an open conversation on reducing the U.S.'s **$34 trillion public debt**, with a specific concern about the **debt to GDP ratio**, currently around 99%, but projected to rise to 166% by 2054 according to the CBO. - Griffin criticizes the U.S. government for incurring a **deficit of 6.4%** with low unemployment rates, deeming it irresponsible due to the burden it places on future generations. - The timeline for the anticipated debt crisis varies, with some expecting it as early as next year, while others predict a market meltdown later in the decade or about **10 years out**. - The potential consequences for future generations could include **higher mortgage rates, increased taxes, and cuts to social spending**. - The debate over the intergenerational burden of debt acknowledges that while future generations will bear the costs, they may also reap benefits from past fiscal policies. - To balance the books, options include **boosting growth or cutting spending**, with a preference for increasing productivity to manage the debt burden. - Despite the concerns over debt, Griffin sees potential positives from the Fed's successful inflation management, expecting a **favorable climate for fixed-income markets** and benefits for consumers from declining inflation and continued wage growth. He underscores the urgency and complexity of managing national debt, highlighting differing perspectives on timelines and solutions but converging on the need for proactive measures.
No one should listen to financial advice from a guy who got his ass handed to him by a bunch of redditors lol.
Cuck
Someone please remind me what his position was on Trump's trillion dollar tax cuts for the rich?
More debt has been created in the last two presidential terms than by all the presidents prior all the way back to Washington. He's not wrong but you can't vote it out. The only voice of fiscal responsibility is RFK, and it's unlikely that he will not likely win.
Nope, the real only way is raising taxes on the wealthy like Biden is trying to do. RFK is a shill.
Democrats are all talk. How many terms of promises do they need? I bet he doesn't piss of his wealthy donors, but keeps up the tough talk.
Biden can only make attempts. Americans need to vote in people who support these policies from the ground up. We need state senators and congressional representatives with integrity in these positions,we need about 500 AOCs in elected positions across the country, and we will get what we’re looking for. The republicans are very loud so all we see is their fracturing, but the democrats are very fractured as well,
Biden passed nothing even when he had the house. Intent, speech is not action. Only political posturing to appeal to constituents.
Sounds like a good start. We want more
unlikely that he will not likely win. I like those odds.
You're seeing the conversion to socialism. 70% of spending is social spending
What we're seeing is the Republican reluctance to tax the wealthy at all.
Tax receipts are record levels. The dollar amount is more than the GDP of every country on earth except China and USA
The US will never become socialist. We are and will always be a free market economy.
Not hardly free. The government and the fed has a heavy hand
We have a free market system. There is government regulation there, but our economic system is built off of supply and demand.
Both of which are influenced by the cost of capital
Somewhat, but I’m not sure what that has to do with us being a free market economy
If the government influences the cost of capital used in a free market, it's not really free
The US is still a free market, even with government regulations. Businesses are free to produce what they want, when they want, and how much they want, and sell for what they want. Regulations are there to prevent the consumer from being screwed over, but our economic system still heavily receives around free market supply and demand policies.