1 hour ago, we_gotta_believe said:

You mean hiring a bunch of inexperienced people was a really bad idea? Nobody could've predicted this.

No one could have predicted how complex it was lol.

19 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Every problem in the US ever can be traced directly back to boomers, and at least 75% of them to DrPhilly directly. This is known.

Yell well I'm a Jones and I have a problem right here for you to manage

12 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

No. An external consultant that comes into a company to actually drive efficiency doesn't add layers of useless paperwork and "reporting" to their plate that takes away from their actual work. That makes them less efficient, not more. And now, thanks to DOGE, his department lost a great manager (that they are still paying through September), and he'll be replaced by someone who isn't as good at what he does. And he's hardly the only one with a story like this.

Perhaps he is thinking about the work he does himself

5 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Yell well I'm a Jones and I have a problem right here for you to manage

1 minute ago, DEagle7 said:

Meh, my pronouns are he/him and my generation is Jones. Get with the program and get it right slacker.

21 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

No. An external consultant that comes into a company to actually drive efficiency doesn't add layers of useless paperwork and "reporting" to their plate that takes away from their actual work. That makes them less efficient, not more. And now, thanks to DOGE, his department lost a great manager (that they are still paying through September), and he'll be replaced by someone who isn't as good at what he does. And he's hardly the only one with a story like this.

Clearly you have never worked with Accenture 😂

It’s almost like when we started giving tax cuts to the wealthy the deficit skyrocketed. Also around the same time single incomes couldn’t support a family anymore, so a second income was needed. Also about the same time the pay ratio gap between CEO’s and workers exploded. Markets also got consolidated into mega corporations, small businesses got bought out or priced out, so now we have less competition. Prices for goods and services are rising higher than ever and the now mostly required TWO income families are accumulating more and more personal debt to pay their bills.

But we’re about to have the first trillionaire.

Anyone else think these might all be related?

1 minute ago, The Norseman said:

Clearly you have never worked with Accenture 😂

I once worked on a project at Verizon that had 300 Accenture consultants out of a total of about 1000 people overall. It was a crazy time.

22 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

I once worked on a project at Verizon that had 300 Accenture consultants out of a total of about 1000 people overall. It was a crazy time.

Nothing better than when a bunch of college grads come in to lecture seasoned execs about how to restructure their business!

4 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

Nothing better than when a bunch of college grads come in to lecture seasoned execs about how to restructure their business!

In this case the majority of them did the grunt coding and testing stuff and then turned up at the nightly happy hours either to look pretty or get the drinks.

29 minutes ago, MidMoFo said:

It’s almost like when we started giving tax cuts to the wealthy the deficit skyrocketed. Also around the same time single incomes couldn’t support a family anymore, so a second income was needed. Also about the same time the pay ratio gap between CEO’s and workers exploded. Markets also got consolidated into mega corporations, small businesses got bought out or priced out, so now we have less competition. Prices for goods and services are rising higher than ever and the now mostly required TWO income families are accumulating more and more personal debt to pay their bills.

But we’re about to have the first trillionaire.

Anyone else think these might all be related?

You do realize that we've had 14 presidents since 1940 and that half of them have been Democrats, right?

1 minute ago, The Norseman said:

You do realize that we've had 14 presidents since 1940 and that half of them have been Democrats, right?

Did I blame any ONE president or party?

5 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

You do realize that we've had 14 presidents since 1940 and that half of them have been Democrats, right?

... and half have been republicans? what's your point?

deficit spending accelerated under Reagan. Reigned in under Clinton. Accelerated under Bush 43 ending with financial crisis, where it spiked. Worked down to about $0.5T/year by Obama's last year. Then accelerated under Trump before exploding during Covid.

what's your takeaway from that, that we can cut taxes and not cut spending and that's preferable?

1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

... and half have been republicans? what's your point?

deficit spending accelerated under Reagan. Reigned in under Clinton. Accelerated under Bush 43 ending with financial crisis, where it spiked. Worked down to about $0.5T/year by Obama's last year. Then accelerated under Trump before exploding during Covid.

what's your takeaway from that, that we can cut taxes and not cut spending and that's preferable?

Eh, this is somewhat misleading for a few reasons. The trend in the deficit has been one direction over time regardless of President.

First - let's be clear that deficits under Reagan were NOTHING compared to what has been run in the 21st century. Reagan's largest deficit was in 1986 at around $220 billion - it reduced to $153bn in 1989 when he left office. Furthermore, Reagan's deficits were primarily driven by increased defense spending as part of a plan to financially cripple the Soviet Union (which, you know, worked). Defense spending was $322bn in 1989, so the budget was in surplus excluding defense (it was $144bn in 1980 before Reagan took office). So basically all of the Reagan deficit was increased defense spending to win a war, and it worked.

Second, Clinton's balanced budget was driven by a couple of non-repeatable factors in reduced defense spending post cold war and huge capital gains tax inflows thanks to the tech bubble following the creation of the internet. In 2000 we had a 236mm budget surplus -- defense spending was flat at $320mm vs. 1989 (had been lower in the 90s), so reduced on a real dollar basis. But in 2000 we collected $127bn in capital gains taxes vs. $35bn in 1989. Now Clinton did pass meaningful spending and entitlement reforms (welfare) which cut spending, and he deserves credit for that. When the NASDAQ bubble burst in 2001, cap gains tax revenue was cut in half.

Third, all of those numbers are quaint compared to where we are now -- $1.8 TRILLION deficit in 2024. W cut taxes and then ramped spending primarily for the war on terror and the awful Medicare Part D legislation. With the financial crisis to boot, the deficit was still "only" $1.4 trillion in 2009. It got back to $442 billion by 2015 thanks to over $100 billion in defense cuts, $100 billion more in capital gains taxes and repayment of TARP money, but it was still 2x larger than Reagan's largest deficit. Then, Trump exploded it to $984bn in 2019 and $3.1 trillion in 2020 (COVID). Even with COVID behind us, it was $1.8 trillion in 2024, so 2x the 2019 amount.

The issue is after "one-off' events like the dot com bust, the financial crisis and COVID, we never get back to the prior levels.

Federal Surplus or Deficit [-] (...

Federal Surplus or Deficit [-]

https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/united-states/military-spending-defense-budget

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/federal-capital-gains-tax-collections-historical-data/

I agree with all that.

The deficit number in the trillions makes DOGE efforts that much more laughable. You're not going to tinker and low-key cut your way to reducing the deficit in any meaningful way.

Until one party is serious about entitlement reform the issue will remain. Anything else is performative nonsense for mouth breathers that care more about using the levers of power to undercut the opposition than to shepherd us towards financial stability.

4 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I agree with all that.

The deficit number in the trillions makes DOGE efforts that much more laughable. You're not going to tinker and low-key cut your way to reducing the deficit in any meaningful way.

Until one party is serious about entitlement reform the issue will remain. Anything else is performative nonsense for mouth breathers that care more about using the levers of power to undercut the opposition than to shepherd us towards financial stability.

I'm not exactly a believer in MMT (modern monetary theory), but more and more evidence is telling us that deficits simply don't matter for the holder of the world's reserve currency. Frankly, no one can really stop buying our bonds or God forbid start dumping them to increase borrowing costs -- it's financial mutually assured destruction. And this is what makes Trump's economic "theories" so preposterous and dangerous. Attacking trade partners with tariffs, backing away from NATO and other defense obligations, alienating allies -- all of this starts us down the road towards a turn away from USD supremacy. That would be the end of the world.

1 minute ago, vikas83 said:

I'm not exactly a believer in MMT (modern monetary theory), but more and more evidence is telling us that deficits simply don't matter for the holder of the world's reserve currency. Frankly, no one can really stop buying our bonds or God forbid start dumping them to increase borrowing costs -- it's financial mutually assured destruction. And this is what makes Trump's economic "theories" so preposterous and dangerous. Attacking trade partners with tariffs, backing away from NATO and other defense obligations, alienating allies -- all of this starts us down the road towards a turn away from USD supremacy. That would be the end of the world.

it's almost like he doesn't understand how these things are interconnected.

almost.

Still at work

the pittance continues

8 hours ago, The Norseman said:

the pittance continues

This represents quite literally 6.6% of the new spending Trump's bill has put into place.

14 hours ago, Gannan said:

This represents quite literally 6.6% of the new spending Trump's bill has put into place.

which "spending" exactly are you referring to?

5 hours ago, The Norseman said:

which "spending" exactly are you referring to?

There's 165 Billion just for the border.

4 hours ago, Gannan said:

There's 165 Billion just for the border.

$199b is not 6.6% of $165b.

On 7/24/2025 at 9:36 AM, DEagle7 said:

Yet here we are, though I’d rather be labeled as a boomer-x.

idiots.