Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, July 28, 2026

"A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking real money."

That famous quote, once attributed to the late Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen in the mid-20th century, is of unknown origin. But when it comes to Congress and spending, the point still holds.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

More from the article ...

... The United States government is shoveling money out the door at a breathtaking pace, well beyond the nation's means -- with a budget of $7.4 trillion for fiscal year 2026 against expected revenue of just $5.6 trillion. ...

#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-07-28 10:54 PM | Reply

... and the approach by Pres Trump to resolve this budgetary problem?

Give more tax cuts to his uber-wealthy friends, possibly representing the largest increase to the Federal deficit of any President.

#2 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-07-28 10:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

This is the most ineffective Congress in history. They simply can't do anything.

#3 | Posted by REDIAL at 2026-07-28 11:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Nothing can be done, the fuse was lit long ago.

Give more tax cuts to his uber-wealthy friends, possibly representing the largest increase to the Federal deficit of any President.

Now you complain, when it was Biden *shrugs*....

I said this is end of empire, America doesn't have a revenue problem it has a spending problem.

#4 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-07-28 11:07 PM | Reply

@#3 ... This is the most ineffective Congress in history. They simply can't do anything. ...

Well, all they seem to be able to do is pass tax cuts for the uber-wealthy, contributing trillions to the Federal deficit a debt our children will eventually have to pay.

But passing things for American workers?

Well, I'd say your comment is on the right path.

#5 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-07-28 11:13 PM | Reply

Capitalism is great until it comes time to pay the bill.

Then socialism is necessary to clean up the mess.

Ask our farmers.

#6 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-07-28 11:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

@#6 ... Ask our farmers. ...

Good point.

But then there's this ...

Trump's $12 billion farmer bailout is a Band-Aid on a bigger wound' the American agriculture industry is still reeling from (December 2025)
fortune.com
... President Donald Trump has delivered on his promise to provide aid to U.S. farmers hit by his sweeping tariff policy, but that hasn't freed the agriculture industry from worries of tight margins and volatile markets.

On Monday, Trump, alongside Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, and National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett, announced a $12 billion farm aid program, which outlined much-needed relief for farmers who sounded the alarms about increasing input costs and fewer export opportunities amid ongoing trade tensions. Farmers will begin receiving funds by the end of February, Rollins said.

"Now we're once again in a position where a president is able to put farmers first," Trump said at a Monday roundtable of farmers and lawmakers. "But unfortunately, I'm the only president that does that."

While farmers and agricultural economists see the package as a way to move forward after a disappointing harvest season, they fear the precedent of cash bailouts does not provide systemic solutions to a beleaguered industry, and they don't believe the $12 billion gesture is enough to solve agriculture's deeper challenges.

"We're talking $12 billion, and while it is a lot of money, in the grand scheme of things, it's still going to be a Band-Aid on a bigger wound," Ryan Loy, assistant professor and extension economist for the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, told Fortune. "How can we triage this situation right now, work on that longer-term solution? That's really, I think, the overall attitude toward it." ...


#7 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-07-28 11:30 PM | Reply

#4

You're a ------- retarded MAGAT clown. Billionaires can ------- afford to pay their share you ----.

#8 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2026-07-28 11:32 PM | Reply

@#7 ... it's still going to be a Band-Aid on a bigger wound ...

Yeah, Pres Trump seems to be all about proffering short term "solutions" to assuage the symptoms, and less about resolving the longer-tern cause of the problem (which he may have created).

#9 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-07-28 11:34 PM | Reply

"US debt is skyrocketing. Why isn't Congress doing anything?"

In Switzerland they (meaning my mother's side of the family) say "the man who is quick to borrow is always slow to pay."

Looking at it from that perspective, I think the reason that so much debt is accumulated is because there's no guilt or shame involved in the average American's understanding of the situation. In Switzerland (and more so in Germany) borrowing or accumulating debt is about as horrific of a "sin" as adultery. Even the German language expresses the two words- guilt and debt- as coming from the same root (schuld/schulden).

#10 | Posted by Nerfherder at 2026-07-28 11:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#10 ... "the man who is quick to borrow is always slow to pay." ...

Whoa.

So apropos.

thx.

#11 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-07-28 11:58 PM | Reply

US debt is skyrocketing. Why isn't Congress doing anything?

Because Republicans only care about debt and deficits when a Democrat is in the White House.

History proves it.

Bush II started us on this path with a willing GOP congress who doubled the budget and set us on the path of systemic deficits and mounting debt. At the time, Dick Cheney said "Ronald Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Not a peep from Republicans.

When Obama took office, congressional Republicans were screaming about debt and deficits they themselves were responsible for thanks to 2 tax cuts for the wealthy/corps and doubling the budget ... all by themselves.

Trump? Crickets. Both times.

The snowball of debt and deficits created and cheered for by the GOP is why we are where we are.

As Trump & Family grift for billions.

#12 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2026-07-29 12:12 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Now you complain, when it was Biden *shrugs*....

I said this is end of empire, America doesn't have a revenue problem it has a spending problem.
#4 | POSTED BY ONEIRONAUT

Which party cuts revenues to benefit a small minority while blowing budgets up with unnecessary DoD spending and contracts for their buddies?

We have a Republican problem.

And a stupid, dishonest s*^%bag like you problem.

#13 | Posted by jpw at 2026-07-29 07:06 AM | Reply

The United States government is shoveling money out the door at a breathtaking pace, well beyond the nation's means -- with a budget of $7.4 trillion for fiscal year 2026 against expected revenue of just $5.6 trillion. ...

That was by design by the GOP in the big bulls**t bill. They held off on the most egregious medicare and medicaid cuts until after the mid terms.

Next year the pain that is going to flow down onto the poor and middle class is going to be epic. And Faux Nooz will paint it all as caused by the democrats who voted against the big bullsh** bill.

#14 | Posted by Nixon at 2026-07-29 08:24 AM | Reply

-Because Republicans only care about debt and deficits when a Democrat is in the White House.

which is perhaps why nobody else worries about it.

the obvious hypocrisy on the issue is likely why even democratic party voters aren't worried about it.

It's ceased to be a wedge issue if it ever really was.

When Clinton accomplished what he did with regards to our debt and deficit spending......did voters really appreciate it?

Well.....Clinton's VP couldn't manage to keep the WH so there's a clue. Did the average voter feel different after Clinton righted the ship? Was there some sense of relief, some pain removed? Not....nobody felt any different. It was as if Clinton did nothing of substance. As if the debt was irrelevant.

What the GOP is doing is taking advantage of the fact the American voters don't understand government debt, how budgets are developed and approved.

And if/when a democrat takes the helm, works with congress to steer the ship is a better direction......the GOP will claim they did it for being the fiscal conservatives they are.

LOL

#15 | Posted by eberly at 2026-07-29 08:37 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

www.ebsco.com

A more considered response came in a postelection speech to the Democratic Leadership Council, in which Clinton defended his record. He pointed out he was the first president since Harry Truman to cut the federal budget deficit, which had quadrupled during the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. Clinton also took credit for promoting free trade, which traditionally has been supported by Republicans, and for his anticrime bill, which provided funds for increasing the size of cities' police forces. Clinton pointed out that he had already reduced the size of the federal government by more than a quarter of a million employees. In other speeches, the president said that although he was willing to cooperate with the Republican Congress, he would not compromise on matters of principle. One such matter was the ban on certain kinds of assault weapons, which was enacted as part of the anticrime bill but which many Republicans wanted to repeal.

When the 104th Congress convened in January, 1995, the Republicans delivered on their promise of a dynamic hundred days. They succeeded in bringing all the major points in their Contract with America to a vote in the House of Representatives, and all but one measure passed there. Many Democrats voted with the Republicans. The one failure was the proposal for a constitutional amendment to mandate a federal balanced budget, which failed to secure the two-thirds majority required for a constitutional amendment. Although many of these proposals faced a much tougher fight in the Senate, it was clear that the Republicans had profoundly shifted the focus of political debate for a long time to come.

Bowing to the immediate reality, Clinton, who had campaigned in part on a promise to "end welfare as we know it," cooperated in 1996 with Republican majorities to produce the nation's first major welfare reform law since the inauguration of President Johnson's Great Society in the 1960's. The reform has been largely credited with reducing poverty and encouraging work among the poor. Moreover, the long-anticipated balanced budget became an actual fact within a few years, as government revenues surged with a healthy economy, generating large reductions in federal debt. For this development, both Clinton and the fiscally conservative Republicans claimed some credit. The Republican majority later successfully impeached Clinton, bringing charges of perjury against him in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, but Clinton weathered that storm.

#16 | Posted by eberly at 2026-07-29 08:42 AM | Reply

#15 is about as truthful as it gets.

I would also ass that most Americans are just as guilty in their own finances. Meaning, borrowing to live outside of their means.

#17 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2026-07-29 08:48 AM | Reply

Ass=add

#18 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2026-07-29 08:49 AM | Reply

When the 104th Congress convened in January, 1995, the Republicans delivered on their promise of a dynamic hundred days. They succeeded in bringing all the major points in their Contract with America to a vote in the House of Representatives, and all but one measure passed there. Many Democrats voted with the Republicans. The one failure was the proposal for a constitutional amendment to mandate a federal balanced budget, which failed to secure the two-thirds majority required for a constitutional amendment

#16 | Posted by eberly at 2026-07-29 08:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

It's simply, a wedge issue.

#19 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2026-07-29 08:57 AM | Reply

17

Agreed....it's not possible to expect people who can't manage their own money to scrutinize a governmental entity that can't manage theirs.

#20 | Posted by eberly at 2026-07-29 09:18 AM | Reply

It's simply, a wedge issue.

#19 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

Therefore with no objective meaning or effect.

Did I misunderstand you?

#21 | Posted by Zed at 2026-07-29 09:22 AM | Reply

It's simply, a wedge issue.

#19 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

Now do trans.

#22 | Posted by Zed at 2026-07-29 09:23 AM | Reply

t's simply, a wedge issue.

#19 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

Now do immigration.

#23 | Posted by Zed at 2026-07-29 09:23 AM | Reply

Meaning, borrowing to live outside of their means.

POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

When you don't have a job or receive a living wage for the work you do everything you need to live is outside your means.

#24 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-07-29 09:34 AM | Reply

Therefore with no objective meaning or effect.
Did I misunderstand you?

#21 | Posted by Zed at 2026-07-29 09:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

Did you even bother reading Eberly's #16? Neither party was convinced we needed a constitutional amendment forcing our politicians to operate within a balanced budget. Neither party wants it. Do you understand that? Each party may have their differences on WHAT they want to spend money on, but neither want to live within a budget.

I don't know why I even bother with responding to you. You're fucking retarded.

#25 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2026-07-29 09:46 AM | Reply

24

I don't mean it as a judgmental issue. I'm just saying those folks couldn't care less about US debt.

#26 | Posted by eberly at 2026-07-29 09:47 AM | Reply

Clinton's VP couldn't manage to keep the WH so there's a clue.
#15 | POSTED BY EBERLY

"Bush won 271 electoral votes, one vote more than the 270 required to win, while Gore won the popular vote by 543,895 votes."

Then there's the question about who actually won Florida in 2000.

You have an incredible talent for seeing America on fire and insisting everyone is overreacting.

It's called gaslighting.

#27 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-07-29 12:05 PM | Reply

27

If Florida had gone the other way, my point still stands. Gore didn't exactly run away with it and the larger point is that voters didn't care about the fiscal accomplishments during the Clinton Administration.

How much did Gore even campaign on that accomplishment? Republicans took credit for it and won a ton of congressional elections in the process.

Where does "overreacting" come into it? or gaslighting?

#28 | Posted by eberly at 2026-07-29 12:09 PM | Reply

Then there's the question about who actually won Florida in 2000.

Doesn't Florida have a lot of illegal Hispanics from Cuba?

How do we know they didn't vote?

Inquiring minds need to know!

When Democrats regain power will we be seizing all the ballots from the 2000 elections in Florida?

#29 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-07-29 12:21 PM | Reply

"the larger point is that voters didn't care about the fiscal accomplishments during the Clinton Administration."

How did you convince yourself of that one!
Al Gore received more votes than his opponent.
That seems to suggest the voters did in fact care about the fiscal accomplishments during the Clinton Administration.

Republicans certainly didn't care about fiscal responsibility then, and still don't today. That part you got right.

#30 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-07-29 12:25 PM | Reply

You're fucking retarded.

#25 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

We have a mutual admiration society.

#31 | Posted by Zed at 2026-07-29 12:29 PM | Reply

The following HTML tags are allowed in comments: a href, b, i, p, br, ul, ol, li and blockquote. Others will be stripped out. Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Anyone can join this site and make comments. To post this comment, you must sign it with your Drudge Retort username. If you can't remember your username or password, use the lost password form to request it.
Username:
Password:

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy

Drudge Retort