Could the cost of trying to reopen the Strait of Hormuz be paid for by a carbon tax?

More oil being pushed through Persian Gulf by US military at great cost. Gasoline and especially diesel is still expensive anyway, though more supply could lower prices in longrun.

Who pays for US military? Will US start charging a toll on oil it pushes through the gulf given its 40 trillion dollar debt? Right wingers don't want a carbon tax to address climate change, but the cost of defending supply chains is a factor also.

Will there ever be enough money?

The national debt just reached 40 trillion dollars. No wonder they are pushing AI. It's seen as a possible "cash cow." There is an overwhelming need for money.

Money is just a number. Not a real product or resource. We can just create more money with entries into a computer, but that leads to inflation. Yes, we've been creating money for many decades. It's called "quantitative easing." It's created inflation, but it seems like most of the inflation settles into asset values, for instance home values. Home values have skyrocketed, in most locations, since my college days.

Other things have gone up also, stocks, healthcare costs and so forth, but things go up at different rates. Some things go up faster than other things. I remember Xerox copies costing around 5 cents a copy back in my college days. They are about the same cost today.

Technology has given us many bargains not even dreamed of in my college days. Lots of wealth is not necessarily measured in money. What can a smartphone do versus it's modest cost?

We have lots of products and services that we didn't have years ago, but do we feel that we are wealthier? It seems like there is a growing split between the those who own assets and the rest of the economy of goods and services. Owning lots of assets, like the billionaires have, makes one very wealthy. It's hard for the rest of us to keep up even with all the new things we have that didn't exsist during my college days.

The first rungs on the ladder are hard to reach and the path forward to higher rungs is spotty. Many fall off into homelessness and then need more government spending to stay afloat yet they often do have smartphones that NASA engineers never dreamed of having years ago.

A smartphone does not necessarily create the sense of home. It's still not "enough." It seems like there is never enough. It's not counted that much in dollars. A smartphone can be sold for less money than one month's rent.

I think people take money too seriously. It's a tool, but it isn't a god. Everything can't be fixed with just tax cuts and / or revving up the economy to super prosperity. The massive data center buildout isn't likely to create a pot of gold either. AI can be a useful tool, like any technology from the automobile to the electric lightbulb.

Maybe they can just print up enough money to subsidize the masses so we can all keep up with the billionaires. So we can pay the rent. We all move forward on a never ending treadmill, but I still think the main focus should be quality of life. That isn't as easy to assign a number to, but there are some indexes that come close. Indexes like health and happiness indexes.

Some European countries seem to do that better.

Maybe Republicans should advocate an income tax increase to pay for their war.

The Defense (or the War) Department wants more more money due to the war with Iran and spreading to other areas. I wonder when and if Republicans would ever say that there needs to be an increase in income taxes? People sacrificed during WWII when they thought that was necessary.

I remember the phrase "Guns and butter" during the the Vietnam War.

Temporary suspension of gas tax might be a bad idea in the long run.

Temporarily suspending gas tax could bring long range problems. Increasing the debt or less funding for roads. We seem to be having a repeat of the fossil fuel crisis in the 1970s. I don't drive though I admit I eat food delivered by truck and prepared by folks who drive to work.

Here in Washington State, the high state gas tax gets complaints also. We may not get lots of road bang for the buck as some state money goes into salmon habitat restoration. We can't have it all. Whales in Puget Sound are large animals and they use the salmon for their food.

Iran may have outsmarted USA in war strategy.

It looks like Iran has outsmarted the US in war strategy. This is not, however, a moral high ground. That's a different measure. In this war, there really is no moral high ground.

In war strategy, Iran has cleverly used the geography of the Straits of Hormuz to ripple global economies so the US faces difficult choices such as the possibility of a ground invasion. Iran's lower cost drones have worked well against our more expensive warfare as the US government continues to sink farther into debt.

Our leaders have harmed our alliances with Europe and Canada at such a time when we could benefit from the alliances that were stronger in the past. Iran has brutalized it's own people and propagated violence abroad though we also seem to be slipping farther into authoritarian government at home. The US and Israel have our own violent effects abroad as well.

It seems like the strategy we have pursued, especially under Trump and Republican Party leadership, is not helping to improve the situation in Iran and around the world.

Beyond just tariff refunds, imagine if Trump remembered corporations and wealthy that avoided taxes.

Trump is now saying he will remember companies that don't seek tariff refunds. Yes, the federal debt is growing and if all the 166 billion collected in tariffs has to be paid back, the debt grows even more. I guess he is showing some concern about the debt and the public good.

Imagine what would happen if so many wealthy people, who oppose and avoid income taxes, felt enough concern for the public good that they paid up. The debt would go down. I'm not holding my breath.

It does seem like everyone in this country is on the take. Everyone seems to want retribution, reparations, compensation and lower taxes. The math never adds up and the public good is held hostage.

Wouldn't it be nice if everyone paid their taxes, including the income tax, out of altruism with the rich, who have the most money, paying the most. I don't see that happening.

In our divided society, there is little trust in the public sphere. Right wingers often say that their tax dollars will go to abortion while left wingers worry about all the killing done by the military.

Trust of government and to some extent the public space is low. Still, we somehow need to put energy in to get the things that a great society provides.

Tariffs did hurt lower income consumers more than graduated income taxes would have. They were a bad idea which seems typical of Trump who's looking out for the wealthy.

The Supreme Court, which is usually in Trump's Court did rule against him on the tariffs so now there is a mechanism for refunds.

The refunds are likely to go to corporations that paid the tax. They passed much of that cost on to consumers. Whether consumers beyond those corporations will benefit is a murky question at best. As usual most people will likely feel, as always, that they have been ripped off.

The national debt; a big source of angst going forward.

The growing federal debt could erupt as a big issue in the near future. Anti tax sentiment and Trump's kneecapping of the IRS could decrease revenue. Add to this a slowing economy and the spending on ICE deporting some working people out of the country. There's the growing costs of incarceration. Ongoing costs for Medicare, Medicaid, the military and veterans benefits are hard to constrain.

Money has to be printed just to keep the government solvent which fuels another round of inflation. Home and other asset values could start rising again, stocks are still riding high. Trump's encroachment on independence of the Federal Reserve Board has world bond markets jittery.

If another round of asset inflation happens, there will be pressure for wages to go up so folks could afford a place to live. This, in turn, usually leads to price increases in other "nickel and dime" goods and services in the economy, such as food as businesses pass on their increased costs to consumers.

To reduce anxiety, think of money as just poker chips. We could have to inflate our way out of debts. Tomorrow's inflation just makes yesterday's debt smaller by comparison. It does have consequences, but maybe not the end of the world in a future where medium home values rise if wages and other prices can rise by the same percentages as well.

Cash savings looses value, but savers loose in times of low interest rates anyway. This could hurt retirees, but there may have to be more spending to help everyone keep up. It's could be just a matter of moving decimal points over. Yes, I know it's not that simple, but I am trying not to loose too much sleep at night.

I wonder how much Trump and our government would be willing to pay for Greenland?

I wonder how much Trump and our government would be willing to pay for Greenland if it were for sale? It could certainly add to the national debt not counting maintaining it and defending it.

The US government must be rolling in money. It wants to buy Greenland and then take full responsibility for it's defense.

The US government is over 38 trillion dollars in debt, but it still acts like it's rolling in money. It wants to buy Greenland. This so the US could take full responsibility for Greenland's defense by pumping up military presence there. The US can do that now. We could deploy massive military spending in Greenland, but haven't done that yet. The US wants to buy Greenland and then take on the full responsibility of it's defense. Trillions more added to the national debt. Fortunately, Greenland is not for sale.

Insistence on buying Greenland seems useless. We can currently ramp up our defense assets in Greenland under current agreement. The cost of doing this isn't being discussed as it is hidden behind the issue of buying Greenland. If we need to ramp up defense of Greenland and pay more attention to it's defense, we need all the help we can get from our NATO (or possibly our former NATO) allies. Doing it alone would be far more costly for us than sharing the burden with other NATO allies.

Pinning the blame for who? The shutdown, the debt and the cutbacks. Wishing for the spirit of Simpson Bowles Act.

It seems like the only leverage that the Democrats have, or at least think they have, in the national government is to shut down the government using filibuster rules in the Senate.

Aside from lower court judges that often get overturned by the Republican Supreme Court, Republicans basically run the national government.

I don't know if agreeing to reopen the government is a good strategy, or not, but if the government reopens, the Democrats may have lots of voters on their side. This due to rising cost of health insurance which will likely be blamed on the Republicans because of subsidy cuts to the Affordable Care Act that many Republicans want.

Budget restraint is usually as unpopular as taxes are among voters. Incumbents tend to become unpopular and the Republicans can easily be seen as owning the economy. Unemployment is likely going up while inflation continues.

Another headwind; insurance rates, for homes and businesses is going up, partially due to climate change bringing high waters to some areas and drought, with it's fires, to other areas. This all could lead to populism swinging back toward the Democrats, but now many people fear that Republicans will try to end democracy altogether to maintain their grip on power.

In 2010, during my work as a custodian, I remember having chats with my modest and thoughtful boss about something called the Simpson Bowles Act to try and reduce the federal debt.

Modest surroundings from behind the scenes where I worked as a custodian.

Sitting behind his hand-me-down desk in his spartan, basement office, he would say he liked divided government. Neither party should have too much power. Compromise can be a good thing. Simpson Bowles never passed, but it was an attempt to compromise.

In earlier years, both Democrats and Republicans were able to compromise on measures that kept Social Security solvent with a combination of modest tax increases and spending discipline. Today, it seems like giving an inch toward any compromise is feared.

The large national debt has given a boost to home and other asset values.

People worry about the national debt and it is a problem, but the Fed can do quantitative easing to print more money. More money leads to inflation, but some folks benefit from inflation. Those who own assets, such as homes, land and stocks see their asset values rise. Much of the growth of asset values, in the economy, comes from that inflation.

What is the money based on. It's based on people's willingness to provide goods and services for the money.

People often discuss what our money is based on. Some say it once was based on the gold standard. It's now what's called a "fiat currency" whose value comes from the trust and confidence people place in the issuing government rather than from a physical commodity like gold.

Lots of people don't have faith in our current government; especially the leadership, but money still works. I say money is based on the goods and services it buys. That's the true economy. It's the goods and services people are willing to provide for the money. One can't eat money, itself. Money is just a system of accounting. It's the actual goods and services that makes up the economy.

The Federal Reserve can just create the money, but that's just numbers, like moving a decimal point over in a computer.

More money doesn't necessarily mean more goods and services. It can just mean inflating the cost of existing goods and services. The whole thing is a balancing act, but the true economy is the goods and services. People tend to forget that, in my opinion.

Often new money does help resolve bottlenecks and greases the economy. It can spur the development of new facilities to help a growing economy. Other times it can be more problem than it's worth. It's a balancing act.

The economy is things like labor, technology, expertise, land, natural resources and so forth.

Expectations are part of the equation as well; at least the equation for satisfaction. If expectations are too high, people can feel impoverished. Expectations can drive us to strive for more, but expectations can also be a burden. It's another balancing act.

Money, itself, isn't as real as the goods, services and assets that it buys. Money is just a number system.

As the national debt keeps going up, people worry that we may run out of money. In reality, we can just print more money, it's not a real commodity that runs out. It's not as real as the goods and services that it buys. It's the actual goods and services that we may not have enough of.

The problem with printing money is that doesn't create the goods and services, it just creates the money itself. Too much money causes inflation in the price of things since it means more dollars chasing the same number of goods and services.

The money, itself, isn't as real as the things it buys. Money is basically just an accounting tool. It's a way to regulate the economy. The actual flow of goods and services is what makes up the true economy.

Printing money doesn't create goods and services, but it can grease the wheels of the economy clearing up bottlenecks for facilitating the production and distribution of goods and services.

On the other hand, too much money can overprice things and plug up the real economy. Balance is what is needed for a finely tuned economy. There needs to be just enough money for things to run smoothly and not too much money to upset the balance.

The money, itself, is not a real commodity, it's just a tool for doing the math and keeping the economy humming.

A good question to ask is this. "Is our economy serving our best needs?" Money is just a tool of mathematics, it's not a god or even a real resource in itself.

Lower interest rates might just push up existing asset prices pushing inflation. This might be why the Fed is cautious.

If Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell were to push for lower interest rates, it would likely push up the values of assets; such as stocks and real estate. This could inflate costs; such as housing costs. That is one reason why he is resisting pressure from Trump.

Another thing I heard, on a talk show, is that lower interest rates, for US bonds, would make them less popular, making it harder for the government to finance debt by selling bonds. It might have to resort to creating new money, also inflationary. The Bond Market can be a check on Trump.

Time to mention my idea of having two interest rates; a lower one for creating new wealth, such as for construction loans and a higher one for buying up already existing assets.

Healthcare industry grows as populations age and more folks can access coverage. This could be in jeopardy however.

Healthcare spending has increased in the US and around much of the world. Aging populations, especially in wealthier nations, are part of the equation. Another big factor, in the US, is an increase in the percentage of population covered by insurance. According an article I saw in New York Times, 14% of US population had no health insurance in 2000. By 2023 that number had dropped to 8%; a benevolent trend.

Insurance coverage has increased mostly due to Medicaid expansion in most states due to Obamacare. The Obamacare exchanges and some other changes has increased coverage as well. Some of this improvement may be in jeopardy due to the budget.

Past growth of healthcare industry is reshaping the US economy. Below graphic I excerpted from.

What are the alternatives? Healthier lifestyles are part of the equation, but not all of the equation. The inevitable reality of death is also part of the equation. It may seem crude to say this, but here is a sound byte I recently thought of.

"Assisted dying is cheaper than assisted living."

Still, in spite of all this, my wish for people, including myself, is.

"May we have many more years."

It takes more than just tax cuts to grow an economy.

Tax cuts are often advocated by people thinking they will grow the economy. In most cases that doesn't work as it takes more to grow an economy than just tax cuts.

Deregulation might do more, but again it takes more than just that. Economies grow from many things like abundant natural resources, innovation, education, infrastructure improvements and so forth. In some cases, reducing regulation harms the environment thus hurting the economy; for instance tourism.

Maybe repealing the 2017 tax cuts would be somewhat of a shock, but Republicans should not add more tax cuts on top of the already low taxes that are skewed mostly to the wealthy. Our system seems teetering on bankruptcy more than ever.

Greed is a big problem. We can never grow the economy enough to be totally satisfying. We need to strive for a sustainable economy instead.

Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) give some Republicans worry about their image. To be honest, the choices are difficult.

Warning: This mentions death.

As Republicans struggle with lowering the federal deficit, I think the biggest slice of the spending pie is Medicare, which I rely on. So far, it's off the cutting table, but Medicaid is another large pillar of life that could be on the table.

Like political "hot rails" politicians mess who these items risk committing "political suicide." These comments from Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) give some Republicans worry about their image. To be honest, the choices are difficult.

Other big budget items include things like interest on the debt, military, veteran benefits and Homeland Security. Beyond that it's many small slices of the pie that keep the country going; such as the Weather Service.

Link to article on Yahoo News.

Some of the so called fat in government is good business for Elon Musk.

Elon Musk, the richest person in the world, is taking on the task of reducing government spending. Many folks have said that he could start with his own lucrative contracts from NASA for his Space X company.

Maybe, for all his billions, he could volunteer to pay, out of pocket, for the Space X resupply missions to the International Space Station.

While I am a fan of science, I've been less of a fan of the Space Station. The space station seems to provide less science per dollar spent than other missions; like for instance the Voyager Missions launched clear back in the 1970s and still sending data back from the outer edges of the solar system.

The space station has been going for a long time and costing NASA quite a bit of money. It has some interesting science, such as something called the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer - AMS-02. There is other science onboard including Neutron Star Interior Composition Explorer (NICER); which I follow somewhat and basically like.

I'm one of the rare breed that follows science more than what billionaire football teams are doing on the football fields. I know more about the stars in the sky than I do about the stars in Hollywood.

I think robotic missions tend to do more interesting science, per dollar spent, than missions with people on board.

Challenges can be useful, however. In it's later years, NASA's need to keep resupplying the space station has provided funding and incentives for companies; like Space X to innovate and fill that need. That has helped to get Space X's systems going so it has now branched out as part of the accelerating private space launch industry.

I use to have more respect for Musk, but his more recent reckless thoughts on X (formerly Twitter) cause me to hear that engineers run his companies and all but ignore the kooky billionaire at the top.

Can he streamline the government? I'm not holding my breath.

Easier for politicians to promise more from Social Security than to increase the taxes to pay for it.

It's easier for politicians to promise benefits than it is to take away benefits. Even enough Republicans went along with this, in spite of worries about Social Security's long term solvency.

Since they did this, next step should be to raise the cap on income that is subject to the Social Security tax. This would return the Social Security fund to more solvency, but it's harder for politicians to propose any increase in taxes.

Passed in the Republican House and in the Senate. Biden will likely sign it.

A reason why federal debt is hard to reduce.

Whether Republican, or Democrat, politicians get elected by promising things to the voters. Delivering bad news, such as big cuts to things like veterans benefits, Medicare or disaster relief doesn't play well for getting reelected. Promising tax cuts is also popular. Even the recent bill increasing Social Security benefits to former federal workers who opted for a lower amount due to their already existing pension plans did pass the Republican dominated House. It may not pass the Senate, however. Delivering unpolular news about tax hikes or real budget cuts is not a formula for getting relected.