Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Obviously, what you're saying is intentionally misleading. Under Trump, we INCREASED Federal tax revenue by cutting taxes (ask me to explain if you don't understand how this works). We had record revenue year over year with low inflation. Our deficits did not increase by any perceivable margin, .
I don't blame Trump for the financial disaster in his final year. So I usually compare his first three years to Obama's final three years. But since you brought up the issue of which party controlled congress I will just compare Trumps first two years to Obama's final two years. Republicans controlled both houses of congress during this 4 year stretch. The numbers listed are the two year averages.
'15-'16. . $513 billion deficit. . 2.2% GDP Growth. . 2.75% deficit percentage of GDP '17-'18. . $722 billion deficit. . 2.55% GDP Growth. . 3.6% deficit percentage of GDP.
If you do the math you will see that Trump increased growth by 16%, but increased the yearly deficit by 41%. Deficit as percentage of GDP was 31% higher under Trump than Obama.
BTW only one year of the '17-'18 numbers include the "Trump tax cuts". When you look at '19 the deficit grew to $984 billion which was 4.6% of GDP. Trumps economy was just throwing gas on a fire that was already there. Problem was that the gas cost more than the heat it provided.
I don't blame Trump for the financial disaster in his final year. So I usually compare his first three years to Obama's final three years. But since you brought up the issue of which party controlled congress I will just compare Trumps first two years to Obama's final two years. Republicans controlled both houses of congress during this 4 year stretch. The numbers listed are the two year averages.
'15-'16. . $513 billion deficit. . 2.2% GDP Growth. . 2.75% deficit percentage of GDP '17-'18. . $722 billion deficit. . 2.55% GDP Growth. . 3.6% deficit percentage of GDP.
If you do the math you will see that Trump increased growth by 16%, but increased the yearly deficit by 41%. Deficit as percentage of GDP was 31% higher under Trump than Obama.
BTW only one year of the '17-'18 numbers include the "Trump tax cuts". When you look at '19 the deficit grew to $984 billion which was 4.6% of GDP. Trumps economy was just throwing gas on a fire that was already there. Problem was that the gas cost more than the heat it provided.
I need you to be VERY clear about what you're saying. Are you saying that the Trump Tax cuts resulted in higher deficits? Please be clear about what you're saying... because if that's what you're saying, I'm ready to correct you.
Also, can you be clear when you talk about "gas" ... are you just making a colloquialism, or are you actually talking about gas prices? Because gas prices under Trump were quite low. Average per year was about ~$2.25 with the highest average hitting $2.80 at its worst, and $1.80 at its lowest.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 01-30-2024).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Also, absolutely no one here actually believes you would vote for Haley over Biden. So don't insult us by saying stupid things.
First of all I did not realize you spoke for everyone here, but I am sorry to say that you are all wrong. Here is my voting history.
1988. I was 19 and did not care about politics, but I was excited to be able to vote. I voted for Busch because Dukakis looked like a dork.
1992. I was much more knowledgeable about politics. Bush was former director of CIA and I just could not believe he had no hand in the Iran Contra deal. Clinton seemed young and cool. Plus he had that hot brainy wife
1996. Things going good. Stay with Bill.
2000. Would have voted for McCain because he was seen as a "maverick" back then who was not bound by party ties, but "W" seemed like the classic unqualified "heir" to a privileged bloodline. I voted for Gore, but it was more of a vote against Bush.
2004. Was totally psyched when we sent troops into Afghanistan. Was totally PO'd when we sent troops into Iraq. Voted for Kerry.
2008. McCain had learned his lesson from '00. He was a bootlicker for the party line in '08. Most people forget that the election was a dead heat until he picked Sarah Palin as his running mate. Shocking, crazy move. I would have voted for Obama over anyone. Economy was in shambles due to lack of regulation on the banking industry. Obama also ran hard on health care reform which is an issue I feel strongly about.
2012. Even though I did not vote for Romney in 2012, I would have voted for him over Hillary in 2016 if he had been the Republican nominee instead of Trump.
2016. Could not vote for Trump. Con man. Liar. nasty human being. I know the way the right feels about Hillary, but the truth is that she has probably been the single most investigated politician in history and nothing ever stuck. I am not a big Hillary fan at all, but Trump has been flat out busted and proven in courts of law to be a liar and a con man. I can not understand why so many people trust him.
2020. See 2016. Biden actually had a long history of working deals in Washington, but he did not look or act well on the campaign trail. Had to vote against Trump,
2024. I first said that I would not vote if it was Biden v. Trump. But I have decided that I will have to vote against Trump again. I kept thinking that the Dems would run someone else. They would have had to do it from the very beginning of the campaign. It is too late now. I am afraid Biden might not even make it through the campaign. Then what would they do. Kamala Harris? No way. I doubt she could even get a majority of votes from black women. I am rooting for Haley.
First of all I did not realize you spoke for everyone here, but I am sorry to say that you are all wrong. Here is my voting history.
1988. I was 19 and did not care about politics, but I was excited to be able to vote. I voted for Busch because Dukakis looked like a dork.
1992. I was much more knowledgeable about politics. Bush was former director of CIA and I just could not believe he had no hand in the Iran Contra deal. Clinton seemed young and cool. Plus he had that hot brainy wife
1996. Things going good. Stay with Bill.
2000. Would have voted for McCain because he was seen as a "maverick" back then who was not bound by party ties, but "W" seemed like the classic unqualified "heir" to a privileged bloodline. I voted for Gore, but it was more of a vote against Bush.
2004. Was totally psyched when we sent troops into Afghanistan. Was totally PO'd when we sent troops into Iraq. Voted for Kerry.
2008. McCain had learned his lesson from '00. He was a bootlicker for the party line in '08. Most people forget that the election was a dead heat until he picked Sarah Palin as his running mate. Shocking, crazy move. I would have voted for Obama over anyone. Economy was in shambles due to lack of regulation on the banking industry. Obama also ran hard on health care reform which is an issue I feel strongly about.
2012. Even though I did not vote for Romney in 2012, I would have voted for him over Hillary in 2016 if he had been the Republican nominee instead of Trump.
2016. Could not vote for Trump. Con man. Liar. nasty human being. I know the way the right feels about Hillary, but the truth is that she has probably been the single most investigated politician in history and nothing ever stuck. I am not a big Hillary fan at all, but Trump has been flat out busted and proven in courts of law to be a liar and a con man. I can not understand why so many people trust him.
2020. See 2016. Biden actually had a long history of working deals in Washington, but he did not look or act well on the campaign trail. Had to vote against Trump,
2024. I first said that I would not vote if it was Biden v. Trump. But I have decided that I will have to vote against Trump again. I kept thinking that the Dems would run someone else. They would have had to do it from the very beginning of the campaign. It is too late now. I am afraid Biden might not even make it through the campaign. Then what would they do. Kamala Harris? No way. I doubt she could even get a majority of votes from black women. I am rooting for Haley.
You'll forgive me Fred, if I tell you that I don't believe any of that.
I voted for Clinton in 1996... but I didn't really know any better and my teachers were telling me to vote for him, and it was the first election I was old enough to vote for. Plus he visited our high school that same year. I liked most of his policies (what little I understood), but I realize now most of what was great about Clinton is that he worked well with the Republican House and Senate... e.g., Contract w/ America. His other policies are roughly identical to what Trump's policies are today.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I need you to be VERY clear about what you're saying. Are you saying that the Trump Tax cuts resulted in higher deficits? Please be clear about what you're saying... because if that's what you're saying, I'm ready to correct you.
"Revenue" is how much money you have coming in. It is only part of the picture.
"Government spending" increases revenue. Trump increased revenue by increasing government spending.
The gap between "revenue" and "government spending" is called the "yearly deficit". So even though Trump increased "revenue" he did it by pumping a lot more "government spending" into the economy than Obama had to.
Since GDP grows every year our revenue should grow steadily every year. So it is hard to compare raw totals/numbers. Instead you need to look at the percentage of deficit to GDP every year. It is possible to increase the deficit in a year and actually reduce the percentage of GDP if the deficit spending produces enough additional revenue. Trump did increase revenue, but he needed too much deficit spending to create those revenue. In 19 the deficit was 4.6% of GDP compared to about 2.8% under Obama.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I realize now most of what was great about Clinton is that he worked well with the Republican House and Senate... e.g., Contract w/ America. His other policies are roughly identical to what Trump's policies are today.
Clinton had the benefit of an economic boom in the 90's. I don't give his policies that much credit. It is easy to pass welfare reform when the country is in a long term economic boom. But he did keep us out of any big stupid military actions that would have sucked up all the profits.
Clinton raised taxes on the top 1% and fought to remove tariffs for "free trade". Doesn't really sound like what Trump did.
And I remember the country being shut down multiple times because Clinton would not work with congress.
Originally posted by BingB:"Revenue" is how much money you have coming in. It is only part of the picture.
"Government spending" increases revenue. Trump increased revenue by increasing government spending.
The gap between "revenue" and "government spending" is called the "yearly deficit". So even though Trump increased "revenue" he did it by pumping a lot more "government spending" into the economy than Obama had to.
Since GDP grows every year our revenue should grow steadily every year. So it is hard to compare raw totals/numbers. Instead you need to look at the percentage of deficit to GDP every year. It is possible to increase the deficit in a year and actually reduce the percentage of GDP if the deficit spending produces enough additional revenue. Trump did increase revenue, but he needed too much deficit spending to create those revenue. In 19 the deficit was 4.6% of GDP compared to about 2.8% under Obama.
NOPE...
Congress spent more money, yes... they increased the deficit yes... but the Trump Tax cuts directly led to record tax revenue. This is WELL understood by everyone. Here are some links:
"Total receipts, which include individual and corporate income taxes as well as estate taxes, excise taxes, and tariff duties, were up between the first 10 months of 2017 and the first 10 months of 2018. The rise was modest -- less than 1 percent -- but it was an increase."
Which is what makes the truth it that much sweeter... (not to mention these were preliminary numbers, and they ended up better than that).
The way it works is, with the reduction in corporate tax, you had corporations bringing cash from overseas into the U.S.. Again... you don't need a historian for this, this was just 6 years ago... this is what the whole plan was, and everyone was talking about it. It led to increased corporate spending, which resulted in the hiring of more workers. More workers means more payroll tax and personal income tax being paid.
Tax revenue had nothing to do with government spending. It had nothing to do with any of the nonsense you're talking about. The Congress (and Trump) did increase spending, DESPITE the fact that they also had increased revenue. Big shock... Republicans like to spend money almost as much as Democrats do. I still find it hilarious though that you give Obama credit for the deficit of the last two and four years of his presidency, when it was under Republican control... they literally refused to let him spend money. And then the first 4 years of his presidency, deficit spending was increased when they had a super majority for the first two years. It speaks to the hypocrisy of the left...
Hopefully in 3 months, you won't start repeating this nonsense again as if it was soooo long ago that it requires historians to tell us what to think about it.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 01-30-2024).]
Originally posted by BingB:Clinton had the benefit of an economic boom in the 90's. I don't give his policies that much credit. It is easy to pass welfare reform when the country is in a long term economic boom. But he did keep us out of any big stupid military actions that would have sucked up all the profits.
Clinton raised taxes on the top 1% and fought to remove tariffs for "free trade". Doesn't really sound like what Trump did.
And I remember the country being shut down multiple times because Clinton would not work with congress.
Once again, a gross misrepresentation of what happened.
Clinton threatened increased tariffs across the board, and used it as a negotiating tool to LOWER tariffs between multiple trade partners, including China, African countries, and Mexico / Canada with NAFTA. Unfortunately... Canada exploited a loophole which dramatically hurt the U.S. economy in the North East, and then Mexico exploited that same loophole stealing the same business away from Canada that they had stolen from the United States just a decade before. That's been mostly addressed with the USMCA.
Again... Bill Clinton was quite moderate... his wife is a radical leftist, but Bill Clinton was fairly moderate, in nearly the exact same way Trump is. Matter of fact, the same people that voted for Clinton are the same people who voted for Trump. Their immigration policies are nearly the same, and both sought to normalize trade and used tariffs as a threat to create trade agreements. Bill Clinton DID work with Congress. He was under pressure from his own party to try to pass new welfare entitlements, which he was not particularly a fan of. The shutdowns were a joke. The Republicans were far more harsh to Obama... lol.
And what are you talking about? Clinton was involved in dozens of military skirmishes... they just weren't Bush / Obama like. Did you forget about Kosevo, Haiti, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Libya, Bosnia? ... what am I missing?
Dude, stop with your nonsense... this is really getting lame.
Congress spent more money, yes... they increased the deficit yes... but the Trump Tax cuts directly led to record tax revenue. This is WELL understood by everyone. Here are some links:
No. You are the one who still does not get it. Increasing revenue does not matter if it takes more deficit spending to get it.
Who is better off, "A" who spends $50 million to generate $90 million in revenue. or "B" who spends $80 million to generate $100 million? You seem to think it is "B" because he has higher revenue, but it does not work that way. Trump used deficit spending to pump up revenues His tax cuts were effective because they were free. He never cut spending to pay for them.
High revenues are meaningless if you have to borrow more money i.e., "deficit spending" to generate them.
[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 01-30-2024).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I still find it hilarious though that you give Obama credit for the deficit of the last two and four years of his presidency, when it was under Republican control... they literally refused to let him spend money.
In 2014, the last year that Obama had a Democrat controlled congress, we had $485 in deficit spending which was only 2.8% of GDP. Two years later when Republicans controlled Congress in the last year of Obama's administration, we had a $585 billion deficit which was 3.1% of GDP.
The Democrat controlled congress held him back more than the Republicans did.
No. You are the one who still does not get it. Increasing revenue does not matter if it takes more deficit spending to get it.
Who is better off, "A" who spends $50 million to generate $90 million in revenue. or "B" who spends $80 million to generate $100 million? You seem to think it is "B" because he has higher revenue, but it does not work that way. Trump used deficit spending to pump up revenues His tax cuts were effective because they were free. He never cut spending to pay for them.
High revenues are meaningless if you have to borrow more money i.e., "deficit spending" to generate them.
I'm glad you're not teaching economics, or accounting. I'm concerned that you teach history.
I'm glad you're not teaching economics, or accounting. I'm concerned that you teach history.
Or so you claim.
I don't understand what you mean. Nothing that I said there was wrong.
It doesn't matter how high your revenues are. What matters is the difference between your expenditures and revenues. It does not help to increase your revenues by $10 million if you had to borrow $20 million to do it.
I don't understand what you mean. Nothing that I said there was wrong.
It doesn't matter how high your revenues are. What matters is the difference between your expenditures and revenues. It does not help to increase your revenues by $10 million if you had to borrow $20 million to do it.
Government revenues and expenditures are separate items.
Trump has been flat out busted and proven in courts of law to be a liar and a con man. I can not understand why so many people trust him.
I trust him (to the extent I do) because he has pretty much done what he said he would do.
A bit of history. When I initially voted for Trump it was in order to (at least symbolically) burn the entire system to the ground. The next best person to be in office in my opinion at that time would have been Vermin Supreme.
But, much to my surprise, once Trump took office he actually did a lot of the things he said he while running that he was going to do. We're not all fools here. We saw him get stopped at nearly every turn by the "establishment". He had members on both sides working against everything he did, and he still got a lot of great things done.
In my lifetime I've never seen a politician actually do the things they said they would do once in office.
As for being a liar and con man.
...and?
Do you not think that EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN OFFICE is a patented liar? Did you see what I posted above??? All of the people in office have promised us the world, and gave is shite sandwiches instead. All of them.
Just going through your post. Clinton lied to all of us through his Presidency. And I think he did a pretty good job, for the record. He was insanely corrupt, probably still is, there were many, many points where he (along with that "hot" wife) were at various levels of scamming people, and had been for decades. I'm not even getting into the rape allegations, or all the flights to pedo island.
Gore was/is nuts. He gave us the severely biased "documentary" that was just created so he could profit from selling Carbon Credits. He's been lying for decades. According to him we're all underwater by now.
McCain is likely currently on a rotisserie in hell. I really hope he asked for forgiveness before he passed. I wish him and his family well and hope they see the light before it's too late.
Obama did one good thing while in office. He ended Don't Ask Don't Tell, which Clinton put in place. Meanwhile he was one of the main driving forces behind the problems with race relations in this country. He destroyed the First Amendment which involved going after the AP, Benghazi , and lied to everyone about ACA being good. We all remember "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor."
So I come back. You won't vote for Trump because he's a liar and a Con man, just as I view everyone you've voted for. What am I missing?
I'm trying not to be biased in this. As I see it Bush was a POS, Clinton was a POS, I even steam (to this day) about the crap Reagan did to us. Trump certainly isn't a saint and there are many things he did or didn't do that I am upset about. As I see it there has been one perfect person on this planet in the past few thousand years, and it wasn't a politician. I also think Trump has done some sketchy stuff over the years. As have I,😉 and as have you. We have all been a real pile of crap in our lives at some point and most of us have paid for those moments many times over. A few of us haven't....yet.
P.S. To any Lefties that care. (not aimed at BingB) Calling anyone out for not being a "Real Christian" is a fools game. Anyone who is a believer isn't going to, or is at least going to try their best to not judge someone else's "Christian Level". Every Christian is on their own path with God. The only people that are going to fall for this tactic are basically already on the left. And in related news we're probably not going to put much stock in the opinion of someone that is also pushing for going against our Religious beliefs.
Christians also all love you, regardless of what you think, and pray that you can find God.
[This message has been edited by Fats (edited 01-31-2024).]
Originally posted by BingB:No. You are the one who still does not get it. Increasing revenue does not matter if it takes more deficit spending to get it.
Who is better off, "A" who spends $50 million to generate $90 million in revenue. or "B" who spends $80 million to generate $100 million? You seem to think it is "B" because he has higher revenue, but it does not work that way. Trump used deficit spending to pump up revenues His tax cuts were effective because they were free. He never cut spending to pay for them.
High revenues are meaningless if you have to borrow more money i.e., "deficit spending" to generate them.
Respectfully Fred, this is completely incorrect. Republicans spent more money = budget deficit. This has ZERO to do with the amount of tax revenue that's acquired by the IRS.
Personally, I think you read something somewhere, and don't really understand what you're talking about... because you're not using the correct terminology. I think you're fundamental misunderstanding stems from your belief that the government "funds" the economy. The concept that government spending (as a percentage of GDP) somehow "generates more tax revenue" is incorrect. But I can understand why you'd think this, especially if you read it somewhere. Fundamentally, it is not wrong to assume this correlation, but you'd be incorrect in that assumption, especially under the Trump administration.
For most of modern history (since Obama really), government spending as a percentage of GDP has typically been over 35% of the American economy. Now, what this means is government funding contracts, grants, etc. ... even quantitative easing, result in a portion of the country's GDP. As it applies to the Trump tax cuts however, you're actually completely wrong.
From in 2018, US Government Spending as a Percentage of GDP dropped to it's lowest level in over a decade. This percentage dropped slightly in 2017, and then more so in 2018. So the question is, how is this possible then when the government spent MORE money than it did the year before? That's because the economy grew so much during the Trump administration (as a result of the tax cuts), that private sector GDP growth increased enough that it reduced the overall USG spending as a portion of the GDP. Deficit increased because the Trump administration grew the government... more border agents, NASA's highest budget % increase in over a decade, creation of Space Force, significant hiring in the IC, all of which results in a higher government costs, but no net GDP gain. You can see the results of the Trump tax cuts vs Government GDP spending right here:
Ok, I think we don't need to address this anymore. As I've said with a lot of these things... this is well understood by everyone who wants to understand it. Your narrative is wrong.
EDIT: 2020 is COVID spending (unfortunately).
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 01-31-2024).]
Originally posted by Fats:In my lifetime I've never seen a politician actually do the things they said they would do once in office.
Quoting this for truth... Trump was the first person who fought tooth and nail (just as you said) to accomplish the things he set out to do in his campaign. Despite insurmountable odds, he was actually able to get a LOT of it done. He accomplished things that most politicians flat-out refused to talk about, or all collectively agreed were taboo subjects to bring up on the campaign trail. More importantly... he brought the snake out of hiding. We now see the corruption (previously hidden) that exists in our government today, as they use every tactic they have even remotely available to them, to stop Trump. As you said earlier... I too will crawl through glass to cast my vote for him.
Deficit increased because the Trump administration grew the government... more border agents, NASA's highest budget % increase in over a decade, creation of Space Force, significant hiring in the IC, all of which results in a higher government costs, but no net GDP gain.
everything you mentioned there would be a boost to the economy (GDP). Anytime you pump hundreds of millions in new wages into the economy people will spend it and drive up GDP. Deficit spending is "borrowing" funds and injecting it into the economy. It is impossible to pump hundreds of millions of dollars into the economy and suggest that it has no impact on GDP. Especially when that is the exact same argument you use to pump up the Trump tax cuts. you claim they put more money in peoples pockets to spend and that boosted the economy. Well I agree with you 100%. Except since we did not cut spending to pay for the tax cuts all that money we put in peoples pockets was "borrowed". It was part of the deficit spending.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
You can see the results of the Trump tax cuts vs Government GDP spending right here:
What I see is that without the Trump tax cuts the Obama administration's spending as a percentage of GDP was LOWER than Trumps even before covid struck in 2020. That is because Trump had to increase deficit spending more to keep boosting the economy.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Quoting this for truth... Trump was the first person who fought tooth and nail (just as you said) to accomplish the things he set out to do in his campaign. Despite insurmountable odds, he was actually able to get a LOT of it done. He accomplished things that most politicians flat-out refused to talk about, or all collectively agreed were taboo subjects to bring up on the campaign trail.
Could you give me a specific example of what you are talking about? What did he accomplish that other politicians would not even talk about?
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: More importantly... he brought the snake out of hiding. We now see the corruption (previously hidden) that exists in our government today, as they use every tactic they have even remotely available to them, to stop Trump.
So far he has not exposed any corruption at all. What are you talking about? Hunter broke some tax laws, but he is not part of the government. And every other claim Trump has made about corruption has been proven false by the court system.
The idea that just because a person has been elected President he suddenly becomes immune from criminal justice is absurd. Any President who breaks the law, no matter which party, should be prosecuted and punished.
Originally posted by BingB:everything you mentioned there would be a boost to the economy (GDP). Anytime you pump hundreds of millions in new wages into the economy people will spend it and drive up GDP. Deficit spending is "borrowing" funds and injecting it into the economy. It is impossible to pump hundreds of millions of dollars into the economy and suggest that it has no impact on GDP. Especially when that is the exact same argument you use to pump up the Trump tax cuts. you claim they put more money in peoples pockets to spend and that boosted the economy. Well I agree with you 100%. Except since we did not cut spending to pay for the tax cuts all that money we put in peoples pockets was "borrowed". It was part of the deficit spending.
What I see is that without the Trump tax cuts the Obama administration's spending as a percentage of GDP was LOWER than Trumps even before covid struck in 2020. That is because Trump had to increase deficit spending more to keep boosting the economy.
Ok, then it's apparent to me that you just don't know what you're talking about. I suggest you go back and re-read several times until it sinks in. What you're saying is really all over the place, and I don't have time to decipher what kind of weird nuanced semantics you're trying to suggest.
As for exposing the corruption. I think you have a reading comprehension problem. I've clearly stated that the Democrats have pulled no punches in what they've tried to do to stop him. Like... why do I have to do this. Was I not clear? Democrats are doing whatever they can... before, during, and after. Everything from FBI / FISA 702 warrant abuses... spying on Trump, spying on other politicians, spying on journalists (this is so common now the media doesn't even report on it). Lawfare (the new term to describe what they're doing). You name it. Stop wasting my time with stupid questions....
Well, it looks like another Trump indictment may be crumbling.
Fani Willis?
Dude... you oughta live here.
Fulton County is a complete shitshow, from beginning to end. It's armpit-deep in mismanagement and cluster-fsckery. They can't even keep their own inmates alive. Seems like someone dies inside that jail, every couple of weeks.
People don't know the half of it.
[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 02-02-2024).]
Fulton County is a complete shitshow, from beginning to end. It's armpit-deep in mismanagement and cluster-fsckery. They can't even keep their own inmates alive. Seems like someone dies inside that jail, every couple of weeks.
People don't know the half of it.
The next one, Jack Smith Jan6. The trial has been put off indefinitely. That is the one that was supposed to begin the day before super Tuesday.
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 02-02-2024).]
Ahh. Okay. Hard to tell which one the wheels may fall off of, first.
I think the Georgia case is as dead as Fanni's career and it sounds like the Jack Smith thing may not happen until after Trump is back in office. So, that puts Alvin and the stripper as the opening act. Are you old enough to remember the dancing chicken at the carnival side show?
All I am pointing out is that Trump cut taxes and raised federal spending.
What would a person who "worships at the feet of John Maynard Keynes" say about that?
Do you even know?
It sad to think about how outclassed you are on this Forum. Keep on keeping on if you must, we find it immensely entertaining. Pitiful, but entertaining nonetheless.
Originally posted by olejoedad: It sad to think about how outclassed you are on this Forum. Keep on keeping on if you must, we find it immensely entertaining. Pitiful, but entertaining nonetheless.
So you also don't get the point that Trump was lock step with Keynesian economic theory of lowering taxes and increasing government spending?
The numbers prove I am right. Do you want to discuss them. Or are you limited to just personal attacks?
[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 02-03-2024).]
Originally posted by olejoedad: It's sad to think about how outclassed you are on this forum. Keep on keeping on if you must, we find it immensely entertaining. Pitiful, but entertaining nonetheless.
That—very unfortunately—is "randye-esque." The attitude of talking down to someone from a higher level, but without anything specific to establish a higher level. The childish assertion of the "Royal We," in which olejoedad indulges the fantasy that he's like a spokesman for some group, instead of just another forum member. The condescending but not very credible assertion that olejoedad's thinking is so elevated that anyone who presents a different view—in this case, BingB—can only be dissed as "entertaining."
Psychologists call this "Swollen Head Syndrome" and sometimes, the "Popsicle Stick Up One's Ass" phenomenon.
Economics? Not my strong suit. This is about the best that I can do: Copy and Paste!
quote
New Keynesian economics is a modern twist on the macroeconomic doctrine that evolved from classical Keynesian economics principles.
Economists [argue] that prices and wages are “sticky," causing involuntary unemployment and monetary policy to have a big impact on the economy.
This way of thinking became the dominant force in academic macroeconomics from the 1990s through to the financial crisis of 2008.
These bullet points are from a very brief and recent article.
I'm waiting for my next opportunity to attend a cocktail party and open up to someone with "I've always been a disciple of Milton Friedman. Lately, I've become conspicuously 'New Keynesian'..."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-03-2024).]
While being a fan of a balanced budget, there are times a deficit is justified. But, for me it depends on what the excessive spending is going toward. The funds currently being expended for Biden's immigration effort seems to be way out of line to me and costing the American taxpayer so the Dems can eventually gain millions of friendly votes. Buying votes goes against my whole character values.
Showing what the last two years of Biden's or Obama's expenditures versus Trump's would be worth knowing.
Since 1989, there have been 6 Presidents: 3 R and 3 D. We've created over 50 million jobs during that period. 49 million of them were created under Democratic Presidents. That's not a coincidence.
That—very unfortunately—is "randye-esque." The attitude of talking down to someone from a higher level, but without anything specific to establish a higher level. The childish assertion of the "Royal We," in which olejoedad indulges the fantasy that he's like a spokesman for some group, instead of just another forum member. The condescending but not very credible assertion that olejoedad's thinking is so elevated that anyone who presents a different view—in this case, BingB—can only be dissed as "entertaining."
Yep, this has been the modus operandi of the usual suspects here for years. It's a self-defense mechanism they employ when faced with a challenge to their narrow-minded beliefs. Just be grateful that they're only names on a screen and not your next door neighbor.
Since 1989, there have been 6 Presidents: 3 R and 3 D. We've created over 50 million jobs during that period. 49 million of them were created under Democratic Presidents. That's not a coincidence.
So you get your copy & paste propaganda from some chucklehead using the name "badlatitude" on your "Sailing Anarchy" website and to top it off "badlatitude's" post is a copy & paste of a Twatter post by some Demorat House Rep from Illinois....
No wonder your posts are chock full of whackadoodle nonsense.
