- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
rather have the money in the hands of three million families than a few hundred politicians
-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
The Economist on Republican Tax
- Thread starter MrWonka
- Start date
rather have the money in the hands of three million families than a few hundred politicians
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2006
- Messages
- 28,174
- Reaction score
- 14,270
- Location
- Boca
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
You clearly are not comprehending the data you chose to acknowledge. There is a difference between gross and net. Net interest is what is appropriated in the budget. Gross interest is an accounting metric. You are choosing to accept the gross interest expense in an attempt to rationalize deficit growth. Cognitive dissonance goes hand in hand with partisanship.
People who disagree with you are not radicals.
This is a lie. We have yet to finish out 2018, let alone the foresight of the actual releases and revisions.
But if you are going to cherry pick time frames, at least be familiar enough with the data to make a valid statement. If we look at all annualized rGDP growth:
we can clearly observe that 3% rGDP growth was achieved 3 times throughout the Obama Presidency, which clearly negates your claim of "first 3% annual gdp growth since 2005". Secondly, this occured simultaneously with a reduction in the deficit!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lamo
Now i already know where you'll go next. January over January yearly rGDP growth!!! But why is that important? What about annualized 4% GDP growth that was last observed during the Bush administration? This never occurred from 2006 - 2018. How about the 5% that hasn't been achieved since Clinton? You've never complained about that... nor have you complained about no president presiding over 13% annualized growth since Truman.
You are not providing objective analysis. Cherry picking for the sake of partisanship will continue to cost you these discussions.
So 2 million per year (2017 - 2018), which is the same pace from 2011 - 2017.
I don't understand what you're trying to say.
Partisan hypocrisy at it's finest.
Preside over a 2020 recession (IMO), while you blame them. Pretty convenient (very pathetic).
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2010
- Messages
- 38,198
- Reaction score
- 15,841
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
But as you said, those 3 million are getting "absorbed" by the addicted.
So before long there won't BE 3 million.
And those politicians you are worried about are already owned by the donor class.
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
the "donor class" is as divided as the rest of the country
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2010
- Messages
- 38,198
- Reaction score
- 15,841
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Yup.
Two gangs.of power/status addicts.
At the helm of our country.
Shaping it to funnel maximum profits to them with minimal risk.
What could go wrong? (See history).
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
You clearly are not comprehending the data you chose to acknowledge. There is a difference between gross and net. Net interest is what is appropriated in the budget. Gross interest is an accounting metric. You are choosing to accept the gross interest expense in an attempt to rationalize deficit growth. Cognitive dissonance goes hand in hand with partisanship.
People who disagree with you are not radicals.
This is a lie. We have yet to finish out 2018, let alone the foresight of the actual releases and revisions.
But if you are going to cherry pick time frames, at least be familiar enough with the data to make a valid statement. If we look at all annualized rGDP growth:
we can clearly observe that 3% rGDP growth was achieved 3 times throughout the Obama Presidency, which clearly negates your claim of "first 3% annual gdp growth since 2005". Secondly, this occured simultaneously with a reduction in the deficit!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lamo
Now i already know where you'll go next. January over January yearly rGDP growth!!! But why is that important? What about annualized 4% GDP growth that was last observed during the Bush administration? This never occurred from 2006 - 2018. How about the 5% that hasn't been achieved since Clinton? You've never complained about that... nor have you complained about no president presiding over 13% annualized growth since Truman.
You are not providing objective analysis. Cherry picking for the sake of partisanship will continue to cost you these discussions.
So 2 million per year (2017 - 2018), which is the same pace from 2011 - 2017.
I don't understand what you're trying to say.
Partisan hypocrisy at it's finest.
Preside over a 2020 recession (IMO), while you blame them. Pretty convenient (very pathetic).
You truly don't understand a lot of things including the official federal data which is of no interest to you. For some reason it is all about giving the bureaucrats more money and having someone else pay for your own personal responsibility issues. Always blaming someone else for personal failures is the liberal mantra which you promote quite well.
2020 recession? Another leftwing prediction all because the govt. isn't getting more tax revenue coming out of the state and local citizens.
Part time for Economic reason employees are people who wanted full time jobs during that booming Obama economy but couldn't find them. they had their hours cut and were counted in the millions. These are the jobs that Obama "created" and set records. These are jobs counted as employed people and skews the employment and unemployment data and these are the jobs that Trump has replaced with full time positions. Businesses are no longer penalized for success and that drives people like you crazy
So let's see if I have this correct, Employment when the recession started was 146 million, Obama with a Democratic Congress that passed his stimulus almost day one in January/early February 2009 saw employment drop to 138 million. In your world those jobs returning are jobs created? Employment never got back to pre recession levels until 2014 and when he left office employment was 152 million or a 6 million employment increase not what you want to claim as you cherry pick data that doesn't pass the smell test. A job lost when it returns isn't a job created, it is a returning job. 146-152 million is 6 million, 152 million to 156 million is 4 million gained in two years, not the 6 million in the entirety of the Obama term
As for GDP Growth, the fiscal year of the United States is October to September and yes, Trump had over 3% growth for that fiscal year and will even have over 3% growth for the calendar year. Keep spinning
Keep spreading the leftwing message and having zero credibility
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2006
- Messages
- 28,174
- Reaction score
- 14,270
- Location
- Boca
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
First and foremost, i would like to point out that your responses are poorly designed and scrambled. Notice how i address all the points i quote, and you can clearly comprehend what statement i am responding to? When you respond, i have to sort through all the partisan vile and dishonesty.
Are you incapable of responding like someone who knows how to use this forum and it's tools?
Your opinion of liberalism has no place in this discussion.
A prediction based on a flattening yield curve. Every recession going back to the Great Depression has been predicated by an inversion in the yield curve... or to put it more simply, when it costs more to borrow short term than it does long term.
Obama didn't create the Great Recession... he only helped to recover from the worst financial and economic downturn since the 1930's.
This is not the topic. Your obsession with Obama has no place in this discussion.
You told a lie and i corrected you. We've been doing this same song and dance (you say something extremely ignorant, i correct you) for what... 8 years?
You are the one of the posters with the least amount of credibility on this forum.
Why haven't you addressed the GOP's failure to address the deficit, even though it was both their most important issue during the Obama administration and a campaign promise?
Why haven't you acknowledged the multiple occasions of 3% annualized GDP growth during the Obama administration? I provided the data, and you have failed to retract your previous statements when they were found to be false. Have some integrity.
Are you incapable of responding like someone who knows how to use this forum and it's tools?
Your opinion of liberalism has no place in this discussion.
A prediction based on a flattening yield curve. Every recession going back to the Great Depression has been predicated by an inversion in the yield curve... or to put it more simply, when it costs more to borrow short term than it does long term.
Obama didn't create the Great Recession... he only helped to recover from the worst financial and economic downturn since the 1930's.
This is not the topic. Your obsession with Obama has no place in this discussion.
You told a lie and i corrected you. We've been doing this same song and dance (you say something extremely ignorant, i correct you) for what... 8 years?
You are the one of the posters with the least amount of credibility on this forum.
Why haven't you addressed the GOP's failure to address the deficit, even though it was both their most important issue during the Obama administration and a campaign promise?
Why haven't you acknowledged the multiple occasions of 3% annualized GDP growth during the Obama administration? I provided the data, and you have failed to retract your previous statements when they were found to be false. Have some integrity.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Do you really believe I give a damn about what you think or your wordsmithing
been here long enough to know how to use the tools, just chose not to do it with you and if you continue you won't have to worry about it as ignore is an option
Results matter and my opinion of liberalism is that liberals like you ignore results or spin them with your own bias
\
You bought the liberal marketing spin when the reality just doesn't support your claims as all recessions can be called Great Recessions. You totally ignore when the term was developed and by who.
No he didn't but was part of the Congress that did. He did nothing to bring us out of recession as the calendar and implementation of his policies shows
My obsession is based upon facts and official data, yours on your own opinions and biases
I don't like, I may mistakes but don't lie. Keep up with the name calling as a diversion from the actual verifiable results. Fiscal year of the U.S. is as described and is over 3% as will this calendar year GDP, what part of that is a lie?
Coming from you that is meaningless
The Trump budget begins the process, a budget you want to ignore
Simple, Obama never had 3% annual growth, he had quarters but never annual and annual is what matters.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2006
- Messages
- 28,174
- Reaction score
- 14,270
- Location
- Boca
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
It's about quality. FWIW, you still failed to use the tools correctly.
All i have been doing is pointing out dishonesty, hypocrisy, partisanship, and poor communication on your part. Why are you so adverse to making a quality response?
The thread topic isn't about liberals or liberalism, and therefore such commentary has no place in this discussion.
Economists refer to the U.S. recession and financial crisis that was simultaneously ravaging the global economy as the Great Recession. Partisanship isn't a counterargument.
Furthermore, there is a severe flattening in the yield curve:
Notice what has followed every time the 10's 2's spread falls below zero. FWIW... this is called simple data analysis.
You're blaming it on Congress on the basis of pure partisanship.
Just because you refuse to acknowledge reality doesn't negate what actually transpired. We've been down this road multiple times... there is absolutely no reason to go off on such a tangent in the midst of the discussion at hand. Remember, the thread is about current deficits and you responded to my statement about the GOP failing to address current deficit growth. :lol:
Your obsession is with Obama. Why else would you completely ignore the posts you quote to regurgitate the same **** over and over and over and over?
When you claim debt service is $555 billion when it is clearly shown to be $325 on a persistant basis... that is lying. When i show you official data of every single annualized rGDP growth rate since 1948, and you still make claims that contradict the data (the same data you use BTW), you are lying. It's not like you can even claim to not have seen my posts. You would quoted them (but didn't address the actual statements)!!!!
Lie.
Let's review the data once again i chose to go back before QII 2000 (which was the last time we had annualized growth north of 5%).
For the record... Bush never achieved 5% annualized rGDP growth. See how ****ing dumb that sounds?
The fiscal year 3% has just been crossed. Notice the times and dates of other annualized growth greater than 3%? That's what i thought.
The GOP has utterly failed to deliver on their campaign promise. They have abandoned deficit reduction when they forced a shutdown during the Obama administration over deficits and spending. In fact, you would chastise Obama and Democratic controlled Congresses for deficits.
This is false and i pointed it out in a post you both quoted, replied to, and clumped together.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
It's about quality. FWIW, you still failed to use the tools correctly.
All i have been doing is pointing out dishonesty, hypocrisy, partisanship, and poor communication on your part. Why are you so adverse to making a quality response?
The thread topic isn't about liberals or liberalism, and therefore such commentary has no place in this discussion.
Economists refer to the U.S. recession and financial crisis that was simultaneously ravaging the global economy as the Great Recession. Partisanship isn't a counterargument.
Furthermore, there is a severe flattening in the yield curve:
Notice what has followed every time the 10's 2's spread falls below zero. FWIW... this is called simple data analysis.
You're blaming it on Congress on the basis of pure partisanship.
Just because you refuse to acknowledge reality doesn't negate what actually transpired. We've been down this road multiple times... there is absolutely no reason to go off on such a tangent in the midst of the discussion at hand. Remember, the thread is about current deficits and you responded to my statement about the GOP failing to address current deficit growth. :lol:
Your obsession is with Obama. Why else would you completely ignore the posts you quote to regurgitate the same **** over and over and over and over?
When you claim debt service is $555 billion when it is clearly shown to be $325 on a persistant basis... that is lying. When i show you official data of every single annualized rGDP growth rate since 1948, and you still make claims that contradict the data (the same data you use BTW), you are lying. It's not like you can even claim to not have seen my posts. You would quoted them (but didn't address the actual statements)!!!!
Lie.
Let's review the data once again i chose to go back before QII 2000 (which was the last time we had annualized growth north of 5%).
For the record... Bush never achieved 5% annualized rGDP growth. See how ****ing dumb that sounds?
The fiscal year 3% has just been crossed. Notice the times and dates of other annualized growth greater than 3%? That's what i thought.
The GOP has utterly failed to deliver on their campaign promise. They have abandoned deficit reduction when they forced a shutdown during the Obama administration over deficits and spending. In fact, you would chastise Obama and Democratic controlled Congresses for deficits.
This is false and i pointed it out in a post you both quoted, replied to, and clumped together.
FWIW I do not see any reason to continue responding to your posts as you totally ignore the official federal data posted. I am officially putting you back on ignore. Some people just are too partisan to admit when wrong and that is you
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm
We are done!
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2006
- Messages
- 28,174
- Reaction score
- 14,270
- Location
- Boca
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
This is gross interest. I have explained that this figure is not what is paid via the appropriations from Congress. The U.S. Treasury simultaneously receives various types of interest income, which offsets the gross amount. The amount of monies received less the amount of monies paid is what appears as interest expense at the end of the fiscal year.
You are done, because you lack the maturity to admit when you are wrong. But when your purpose is to spread lies and ignore fact just to push a partisan agenda....
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 37,290
- Reaction score
- 10,600
- Location
- US Southwest
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Is shown CLEARLY that O had multiple annual greater than 3% GDP gains, says:
Pathetic.
Only exceeds his stupid hypocrisy...by putting Kush on ignore.
Pathetic.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
This is the highest GROSS INTEREST IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY, making the NET the highest as well, none of which was Trump's\
I have asked for the line items in the budget showing revenue and expenses that led to the deficit in 2018 and this is what I get, more blame than evidence of your position. What you and most liberals never understand is how income tax cuts benefit other tax revenue streams and how Treasury at both the federal and state levels show record revenue in other tax revenue streams. There is a reason you are going ignore, a true waste of time and true leftwing radical who doesn't understand the American economy at all
WE are indeed done, waste of time posting a response
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 37,290
- Reaction score
- 10,600
- Location
- US Southwest
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
LOL....I thought he was on ignore!
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2006
- Messages
- 28,174
- Reaction score
- 14,270
- Location
- Boca
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
As a percentage of expenditures, it is very close to the historic low:
I don't jump to tasks at your command. If these figures are important to you, then by all means do the work yourself. The CBO already did a solid analysis of the 2018 fiscal year.
Total receipts:
Yes. I have handed you your ass, and you lack the composure to behave like a person of integrity.
Yep... I'm a leftwing radical because i show you lie about data, say partisan things, and ignore the posts you quote.
I accept your surrender.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2006
- Messages
- 28,174
- Reaction score
- 14,270
- Location
- Boca
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I'm back, back, on ignore.
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 37,290
- Reaction score
- 10,600
- Location
- US Southwest
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Here is the problem most have with the radical left, they have no understanding as to the line items in the budget which are as follows:
Income Taxes
Corporate Taxes
Total Tax Revenue
Employment and general retirement
Unemployment insurance
Other retirement
Excise taxes
Other:
Estate and gift taxes
Customs duties
Miscellaneous receipts
Total other
Total Revenue
National defense-FIT
International affairs-FIT
General science, space, and technology-FIT
Energy-FIT
Natural resources and environment-FIT
Agriculture-FIT
Commerce and housing credit-FIT
Transportation-EXCISE
Community and regional development-FIT
Education, training, employment and social services-FIT
Health-FIT
Medicare-FICA
Income security-
Social security-FICA
Veterans benefits and services
Administration of justice
General Government
Net interest
They always blame someone else for their own failures. I challenge any leftist here to take the items in the budget and apply the revenue and expenses to each and actually see where the deficit is being generated. What are you leftists afraid of?
Income taxes are to fund specific parts of the budget as are excise taxes, payroll taxes, estate taxes, unemployment insurance etc and yet the left always focuses on income taxes totally ignoring that when income taxes are cut other taxes grow due to consumer spending and job creation. The left truly is a cult that cannot admit when wrong and no facts are ever going to change their minds. Amazing the loyalty they have to a failed ideology
Income Taxes
Corporate Taxes
Total Tax Revenue
Employment and general retirement
Unemployment insurance
Other retirement
Excise taxes
Other:
Estate and gift taxes
Customs duties
Miscellaneous receipts
Total other
Total Revenue
National defense-FIT
International affairs-FIT
General science, space, and technology-FIT
Energy-FIT
Natural resources and environment-FIT
Agriculture-FIT
Commerce and housing credit-FIT
Transportation-EXCISE
Community and regional development-FIT
Education, training, employment and social services-FIT
Health-FIT
Medicare-FICA
Income security-
Social security-FICA
Veterans benefits and services
Administration of justice
General Government
Net interest
They always blame someone else for their own failures. I challenge any leftist here to take the items in the budget and apply the revenue and expenses to each and actually see where the deficit is being generated. What are you leftists afraid of?
Income taxes are to fund specific parts of the budget as are excise taxes, payroll taxes, estate taxes, unemployment insurance etc and yet the left always focuses on income taxes totally ignoring that when income taxes are cut other taxes grow due to consumer spending and job creation. The left truly is a cult that cannot admit when wrong and no facts are ever going to change their minds. Amazing the loyalty they have to a failed ideology
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Annual GDP growth by year for Obama, NO year with 3% growth
What truly is pathetic is the loyalty to a failed Administration
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 37,290
- Reaction score
- 10,600
- Location
- US Southwest
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
You don't deserve this, but I was looking at quarterly, my mistake.
Now, it is time for you to say why you think I have a husband. Again, are you fantasizing about me being a female....or a gay male?
Just put me on ignore already.
celticwar17
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2011
- Messages
- 6,540
- Reaction score
- 2,524
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
The fiscal prudence doesn't come with the tax plan.... it comes with spending cuts. We have plenty of revenue per capa, on par with Germany and the UK... We need to reduce spending... you are implementing the wrong solution.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2006
- Messages
- 28,174
- Reaction score
- 14,270
- Location
- Boca
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
He is specifically citing annualized quarterly data when stating 3% for the fiscal year. The first and second graphs in post 202 illustrate this data.