TylerDurden

That's a red herring. Why would anyone support of the deployment of the United States military into the streets of its cities so it can act as a police force? It's amazing to me how many people support and cheer on the erosion of their rights.

There's no room for sensible takes on this forum. You're supposed to ignore evidence or make up your own to support whatever your favorite media outlet tells you to support.

By definition, hyperbolic statements aren't true or meant to be taken as such. My guess is this thread will be full of a million examples of things that aren't hyperbole being presented as hyperbole.

It's simply FBI data dating back 34 years. This stuff isn't hard to find.

It's been on a downward trajectory since 1991.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trumps-washington-dc-national-guard-plan-ignores-fbi-crime-data-rcna224290 https://www.factcheck.org/2025/08/trump-distorts-violent-crime-statistics-in-ordering-takeover-and-troops-to-d-c/ DC's violent crime rate in 2024 was the lowest it's been for more than 30 years, per the US attorney's office and lowest since 1966 per the FBI reporting.

It sounds like the real lesson here, aside from not driving with expired tags whilst you have a combo of drugs/guns in your car, is that talking to the police without your attorney present is almost always a bad idea.

Greco

I don't know if you guys are tracking this, but you're arguing about the smoke screen. Late last night/early this morning, the House passed a bill that has Rand Paul sounding like the only sane person in the party. Some people wanted to fight with me on another thread about how this was going to go and while this still has to work through the Senate, it sure looks like the Republican super-majority is going to move forward with this fiscally irresponsible bill. Video:

Dake/Starocci is going to be decided by the order of passivity calls.

This is a specious question, but aside from that leveraging debt has been a hallmark of US economic expansion and innovation. What you consider to be good investment, others may not and you'd also have to decide what items are the "extra" over and above revenues. That essentially is what politics is - an big debate about how to allocate resources. That's how you'd decide what is "good" or "bad" debt. My thoughts on what the federal government should invest in over and above annual revenues probably differs from yours, but I do not think that the US government should have zero debt. That's a fallacy of composition. Government investment in infrastructure and research, for instance, is hugely beneficial to our economy - eliminating that is cutting off your nose to spite your face. On a very superficial level, I'm not in favor of policies that create funding gaps the didn't previously exist for things that don't move the economic needle for average folks. If your aim is to reduce revenue, that's fine but offering plans that do not have a corresponding reduction in spending is bad policy for deficit and debt management. The reverse is also true.

Ignoring the full COVID year, which is valid, the annualized amount for the first three months is the second largest ever, right behind the 08-09 auto bailout that spanned Bush/Obama, which one could reasonably be argued deserved to be singled out, but wasn't. So there definitely aren't numerous others. So, at worst, I looked a the bright red line, saw the number, misspoke and it's the second highest. While some may disagree that the annualized amount is correct - I know you do - I don't think it's far fetched when you consider the negative revenue impacts of the Trump tax cuts and increases in spending. At the very least, the same data set isn't trying to game the system with some partisan agenda as some have implied (not you). But whether it's the largest or second largest, no one can debate the trend lines.

The deficit is based on the budget, they're basically 1:1. It's the difference between what we spend versus what we collect in a fiscal year. That speaks to an administration's ability/willingness/desire to make the revenues and expenses closer via the legislative (or other) processes. All debt isn't bad debt and people often engage in fallacies of composition when they think about national debt versus their individual households. The level is the debate - which is part of the reason we end up with the debt ceiling debates. For sure there are obligations that continue over time and span administrations, no debating that, but I'm not sure what you're getting at with lagging indicators that you've mentioned. For sure there are bills designed to make the next person look bad, no doubt about that. I'd argue that it's not partisan to point out factual information about which administrations have done better with that balance. But either way, I'm certainly not arguing that Democrats are perfect. I happen to think they're an absolutely horrendous operation. First, I agree that the current operation of our congress is an obstructionist sh*tshow. I'm sure we all have various ideas about how we got here. It wasn't always this way. We've lost a lot of statesmen in the past 15-20 years and have replaced them with caricatures. Blame the rise of social media, disinformation, or whatever you prefer. We're made to believe that anyone who doesn't share your opinion is your enemy. It's sad, really. The answer to how to fix this or anything else someone considers an issue, like most things that are political, is that it depends on what your priorities are. If we think that our debt load it too high, we have to either spend less, increase revenue or a combination of the two. But the devil is always in the details and, even at that, you're relying on politicians to do the "right" things. The way I see it, those priorities change amongst politicians (and voters) depending on who is in the White House and the balance of congress - and that's why nothing ever seems to get fixed.

It's not false.

It's in the thread.