• 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!

Trump's budget proves GOP deficit hawks are a dying breed

Why is Medicaid, SNAP, Disability programs, DCD and NIH Federal programs anyway? Where are those listed in the Constitution? Federal overreach has been out of control for decades and with record revenue now going to the states because of consumer spending isn't it time to take power away from the bureaucrats in D.C. that only buy votes with the money and handouts?

The Founders opposed standing armies. Start cutting that bloated military funding and we can start talking about cutting other programs.
 
as usual, republicans only want tax money to go to things they care about and things that affect them, the hell with everybody else. Cut the damn military budget already, stop pissing away trillions killing and destorying all over the world

The military budget is so totally and completely out of control. We should lose 15-18% of it immediately.
 
Keep focusing on trends and ignoring the dollars.

My analysis is based on a wide variety of data analysis and economic theory. You can't claim the same.

Upward trend sounds great until you look at the dollars collected

Focus on nominal dollar amounts excludes inflation or population growth. To account for both dynamics, real revenue per-capita would be the correct metric, but you've chosen to ignore valid data analysis for partisan hackery.

just like Obama's GDP growth

Do you dream about Obama?

by dollar standards a disaster based upon the dollars spent.

This doesn't even make sense.

States and local gov'ts because of consumer spending have generated massive amounts of cash from sales and property taxes along with the state excise taxes on gasoline due to travel.

Again, we haven't seen anything well above the trend established 8 years ago.

Upward trends mean nothing, dollars do

A most ignorant thing to claim. This type of data analysis would be rejected in every single capacity.

It is also amazing how all those red states apparently only have poor Republicans in them and never poor democrats.

Again with the strawman!!!! I never claimed they only have poor Republicans!!!! I did however claim that they were poor Republican states, meaning that the political arena is dominated by Republicans. Poor is referencing the real median incomes, investment, wage growth, real estate values, etc.....

You are truly clueless

Again, the only thing you've demonstrated is that you're really bad at making arguments and backing them up with logic and facts. Hence, you rely on fallacies.

No obsession with Obama just and obsession with the poor results of the Obama policies which I noticed you ignoring the results

So you are obsessed.
 
The Founders opposed standing armies. Start cutting that bloated military funding and we can start talking about cutting other programs.

So you call 900 billion out of a 4.4 trillion dollar budget bloated?? How much should we have to defend 330 million Americans and stop radical Islam from expanding? How much are you going to cut?
 
My analysis is based on a wide variety of data analysis and economic theory. You can't claim the same.



Focus on nominal dollar amounts excludes inflation or population growth. To account for both dynamics, real revenue per-capita would be the correct metric, but you've chosen to ignore valid data analysis for partisan hackery.



Do you dream about Obama?



This doesn't even make sense.



Again, we haven't seen anything well above the trend established 8 years ago.



A most ignorant thing to claim. This type of data analysis would be rejected in every single capacity.



Again with the strawman!!!! I never claimed they only have poor Republicans!!!! I did however claim that they were poor Republican states, meaning that the political arena is dominated by Republicans. Poor is referencing the real median incomes, investment, wage growth, real estate values, etc.....



Again, the only thing you've demonstrated is that you're really bad at making arguments and backing them up with logic and facts. Hence, you rely on fallacies.



So you are obsessed.

The data I post is right from the official federal agencies, you don't like them so you skew them with your own lens, the higher the GDP the lower the percentage increase from year to year but the higher dollar amounts generated are what matters. I am obsessed with the truth, something you don't even understand as you have yet to refute any of the data I have posted or even acknowledged it

You haven't seen an increase because you aren't looking for it or seeking the information. Everything you have is focused on Federal dollars received not state and local dollars.

I am dealing about 4-6 people here which is why I don't format the replies to you like you want nor will I but I stand by the data posted and the 2 trillion dollars in GDP growth from 2017 to 2019, and the 4.2 trillion growth from 2008-2016 of which gov't spending skewed the data just like part time employment for economic reasons skews the employment data. Proper context makes you look like a fool
 
The data I post is right from the official federal agencies

So. You don't understand what the data means, or how it is integrate data into an objective analysis.

you don't like them so you skew them with your own lens

This is a lie. That i'm fluent in data analysis doesn't mean i skew data for political gain... that would be you. Take your recent fetish with nominal GDP. When the Trump economy failed to generate the 3% annual growth you so hoped for, your focus shifted to changes in nominal GDP.

the higher the GDP the lower the percentage increase from year to year but the higher dollar amounts generated are what matters.

No it does not. There are a plethora of other factors that should be taken into consideration when analyzing the economy. Myopia doesn't help your case in any way.

yet to refute any of the data I have posted or even acknowledged it

I have refuted everything you've put forth.

You haven't seen an increase because you aren't looking for it or seeking the information.

The increase is not what was promised by Trump, his Treasury Secretary, or yourself. You whined about projections of the deficit. Now when the projections come to light, you want to shift the goalpost. That won't work.

Everything you have is focused on Federal dollars received not state and local dollars.

This sentence doesn't follow... try again.

I am dealing about 4-6 people here which is why I don't format the replies to you like you want

I don't care about your excuses.

I stand by the data posted and the 2 trillion dollars in GDP growth from 2017 to 2019, and the 4.2 trillion growth from 2008-2016

Which makes you an ignorant, partisan, fool. If you can't comprehend why the above is an invalid line of thinking, i will not be able to help you.

which gov't spending skewed the data just like part time employment for economic reasons skews the employment data.

PTFER doesn't skew the employment data... you don't know what you're talking about.

Proper context makes you look like a fool

You are the least respected member of this forum. :2wave:
 
Kushinator;1069835884]So. You don't understand what the data means, or how it is integrate data into an objective analysis.

LOL, another Kushinator lie. You don't like the data in context so trying to bully me won't work


This is a lie. That i'm fluent in data analysis doesn't mean i skew data for political gain... that would be you. Take your recent fetish with nominal GDP. When the Trump economy failed to generate the 3% annual growth you so hoped for, your focus shifted to changes in nominal GDP.

I don't give a damn if the GDP growth is 3% even though it will be, I prefer the 2 TRILLION DOLLAR GROWTH


No it does not. There are a plethora of other factors that should be taken into consideration when analyzing the economy. Myopia doesn't help your case in any way.

So you say but as we have all seen you have no logic, no common sense, and no understanding of human nature or behavior including your own


I have refuted everything you've put forth.

No you haven't, your charts do not have context and thus are irrelevant



The increase is not what was promised by Trump, his Treasury Secretary, or yourself. You whined about projections of the deficit. Now when the projections come to light, you want to shift the goalpost. That won't work.

The tax cut went into effect January 2018 and the results are great and will be getting better as it really bothers you that people are getting to keep more of what they earn. Don't give a damn about projections nor do I care how much money gets to the bureaucrats in D.C. until they propose actual cuts in the budget like Trump has done. More money gives them more power which obviously must benefit you



This sentence doesn't follow... try again.

Bull****, NO



I don't care about your excuses.

You obviously don't care about data or facts in context either



Which makes you an ignorant, partisan, fool. If you can't comprehend why the above is an invalid line of thinking, i will not be able to help you.

LOL, I have a long way to go to beat you as a partisan fool.



PTFER doesn't skew the employment data... you don't know what you're talking about.

Really? SO employment numbers don't include PTFER? Is that your claim?? Another Kush lie, this is getting old and I am embarrassed for you



You are the least respected member of this forum. :2wave:

AS I have told you before guess I will just have to live with it as if I give a damn about what you say or think. Can tell you this, if you have this attitude and work in the private sector you wouldn't last 2 years let alone the 8 years Obama lasted with the results he generated. Making excuses is what you and the radical left does to support your low expectations but only with a Democrat not a Republican.
 
Why do you struggle with post format?

You don't like the data in context so trying to bully me won't work

I have no issue with data... only when it is used improperly. Hence our issue.

I don't give a damn if the GDP growth is 3% even though it will be, I prefer the 2 TRILLION DOLLAR GROWTH

Which makes you an ignorant partisan hack.

So you say but as we have all seen you have no logic, no common sense, and no understanding of human nature or behavior including your own

Nobody gives a **** about or respects your opinion.

No you haven't, your charts do not have context and thus are irrelevant

Context, like dealing with a Lessor Depression? Context, like deficit growth during economic growth? Context, like:

fredgraph.png


The tax cut went into effect January 2018 and the results are great

They are the same results we've been getting since 2010. The only difference is the deficit has grown immensely. That didn't happen during the Obama administration, as the deficit fell from 2010 until 2015, with a slight uptick in 2016 and 2017.

will be getting better

Not according to the White House! There is a thread about this reality. :lol:

Bull****, NO

An even more provocative fail.

Really? SO employment numbers don't include PTFER? Is that your claim?? Another Kush lie, this is getting old and I am embarrassed for you

The BLS establishment survey is does not take into consideration PTFER. It is the establishment survey for which the BLS posts monthly job numbers. Thanks for another example of how to be a failure.
 
Why do you struggle with post format?



I have no issue with data... only when it is used improperly. Hence our issue.



Which makes you an ignorant partisan hack.



Nobody gives a **** about or respects your opinion.



Context, like dealing with a Lessor Depression? Context, like deficit growth during economic growth? Context, like:

fredgraph.png




They are the same results we've been getting since 2010. The only difference is the deficit has grown immensely. That didn't happen during the Obama administration, as the deficit fell from 2010 until 2015, with a slight uptick in 2016 and 2017.



Not according to the White House! There is a thread about this reality. :lol:



An even more provocative fail.



The BLS establishment survey is does not take into consideration PTFER. It is the establishment survey for which the BLS posts monthly job numbers. Thanks for another example of how to be a failure.

Again as usual you are wrong, this is why you have no credibility, Obama's employment performance included these part time jobs for economic reasons and that skewed the employment data

Access Denied

Who is counted as employed?
People are considered employed if they did any work at all for pay or profit during the survey reference week. This includes all part-time and temporary work, as well as regular full-time, year-round employment. Individuals also are counted as employed if they have a job at which they did not work during the survey week, whether they were paid or not, because they were:
 
Again as usual you are wrong, this is why you have no credibility, Obama's employment performance included these part time jobs for economic reasons and that skewed the employment data

Access Denied

Establishment vs. Household survey.
 
Establishment vs. Household survey.

And your point?? The population survey which is the Household survey counts part time employment as part of the employment numbers so in this spreadsheet that you want to ignore the employment number includes those part time for economic reasons, that chart is also listed below

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 2008 to 2018

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 146378 146156 146086 146132 145908 145737 145532 145203 145076 144802 144100 143369
2009 142152 141640 140707 140656 140248 140009 139901 139492 138818 138432 138659 138013
2010 138438 138581 138751 139297 139241 139141 139179 139438 139396 139119 139044 139301
2011 139250 139394 139639 139586 139624 139384 139524 139942 140183 140368 140826 140902
2012 141584 141858 142036 141899 142206 142391 142292 142291 143044 143431 143333 143330
2013 143292 143362 143316 143635 143882 143999 144264 144326 144418 143537 144479 144778
2014 145150 145134 145648 145667 145825 146247 146399 146530 146778 147427 147404 147615
2015 148150 148053 148122 148491 148802 148765 148815 149175 148853 149270 149506 150164
2016 150622 150934 151146 150963 151074 151104 151450 151766 151877 151949 152150 152276
2017 152128 152417 152958 153150 152920 153176 153456 153591 154399 153847 153945 154065
2018 154482 155213 155160 155216 155539 155592 155964 155604 156069 156582 156803 156945

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS12032194
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level - Part-Time for Economic Reasons, All Industries
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Hours at work: 1 to 34 hours
Reasons work not as scheduled: Economic reasons
Worker status/schedules: At work part time
Years: 2008 to 2019

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 4846 4902 4904 5220 5286 5540 5930 5851 6148 6690 7311 8029
2009 8046 8796 9145 8908 9113 9024 8891 9029 8847 8979 9114 9098
2010 8530 8936 9233 9178 8845 8577 8500 8800 9246 8837 8873 8935
2011 8470 8464 8645 8652 8576 8427 8281 8788 9166 8657 8447 8171
2012 8305 8238 7775 7913 8101 8072 8082 7974 8671 8203 8166 7943
2013 8151 8178 7722 7964 7937 8103 8099 7816 7764 7936 7718 7827
2014 7296 7299 7435 7509 7254 7422 7402 7177 7020 7025 6898 6856
2015 6808 6671 6629 6608 6628 6383 6249 6423 6043 5811 6174 6084
2016 5941 5978 6066 6006 6467 5748 5926 5995 5918 5971 5738 5621
2017 5753 5603 5455 5279 5234 5266 5281 5237 5179 4912 4866 4986
2018 4982 5115 4969 4952 4920 4736 4588 4368 4656 4630 4781 4657
2019 5147

February numbers were 4.3 million. Paints a different picture than what you want to tout when you take out part time employment from the employment numbers
 
So you call 900 billion out of a 4.4 trillion dollar budget bloated?? How much should we have to defend 330 million Americans and stop radical Islam from expanding? How much are you going to cut?

Considering we spend more on our military than then next 9 countries combined it absolutely is bloated. You bring up radical Islam (which is a problem, yes) but so is the growing threat of radical right-wing white supremacists. I bet you would never bring up the fact 73% of terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11 have come from right wing extremist groups.
 
Considering we spend more on our military than then next 9 countries combined it absolutely is bloated. You bring up radical Islam (which is a problem, yes) but so is the growing threat of radical right-wing white supremacists. I bet you would never bring up the fact 73% of terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11 have come from right wing extremist groups.

Why do you think that is the case?? Any idea what 9/11 cost the taxpayers? I don't recall those right wing extremist groups killing 3000 Americans. You are unreal, my father and my father in law fought to give you the right to make a total ass out of yourself and you are doing a great job of it. Your parents must be so proud.
 
Why do you think that is the case?? Any idea what 9/11 cost the taxpayers? I don't recall those right wing extremist groups killing 3000 Americans.

So if left-wing loons from the Earth Liberation Front started shooting people wearing fur coats you'd think it was no big deal because the numbers would be smaller? Somehow I doubt that. Fox News lost its freaking mind when eco-terrorists spray-painted a bunch of Hummers at a car dealership. 73% of USA terror attacks since 9/11 have come from right-wing extremists. Sit on it.


You are unreal, my father and my father in law fought to give you the right to make a total ass out of yourself and you are doing a great job of it. Your parents must be so proud.

When you start making it personal then you lose.

Btw, my grandfather fought in the Korean War and my great uncle parachuted in on Normandy the night before D-Day. I have close relatives in every major war back to the Revolution. My love for my country is what makes me so critical of the greed-heads who want to make a buck on human suffering.
 
So if left-wing loons from the Earth Liberation Front started shooting people wearing fur coats you'd think it was no big deal because the numbers would be smaller? Somehow I doubt that. Fox News lost its freaking mind when eco-terrorists spray-painted a bunch of Hummers at a car dealership. 73% of USA terror attacks since 9/11 have come from right-wing extremists. Sit on it.




When you start making it personal then you lose.

Btw, my grandfather fought in the Korean War and my great uncle parachuted in on Normandy the night before D-Day. I have close relatives in every major war back to the Revolution. My love for my country is what makes me so critical of the greed-heads who want to make a buck on human suffering.
Well congratulations, my dad was at Pearl Harbor when they bombed it and my father-in-law was at the 5th Wave of Normandy both of them fought to give you the opportunity to make an ass of yourself what you're doing.

Tell me how much of a defense budget we need because that is the role of the Federal Government, to provide for the common defense. You leftist have made it to provide for domestic welfare when the word is promote

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
Establishment vs. Household survey.

Noticed you again refused to admit that you are wrong with regards to PTFER employees being included in the Household Survey which is the source used for the official employment/unemployment data. This just goes to show how little credibility you have and how posting graphs without context is what you use to bully others. You won't bully me and I will continue to prove you wrong and nothing but a partisan liberal
 
Noticed you again refused to admit that you are wrong with regards to PTFER employees being included in the Household Survey which is the source used for the official employment/unemployment data. This just goes to show how little credibility you have and how posting graphs without context is what you use to bully others. You won't bully me and I will continue to prove you wrong and nothing but a partisan liberal

The household survey is used to ascertain the unemployment rate, and is not an accurate depiction of real time job creation. It has been explained, in great detail I might add, why you should avoid mistaking the data. And still you persist with unparalleled ignorance and hackery.

I do not reference the household survey when taking about employment growth, so your endless tirade of strawmen only serves to highlight how desperate you are.
 
The household survey is used to ascertain the unemployment rate, and is not an accurate depiction of real time job creation. It has been explained, in great detail I might add, why you should avoid mistaking the data. And still you persist with unparalleled ignorance and hackery.

I do not reference the household survey when taking about employment growth, so your endless tirade of strawmen only serves to highlight how desperate you are.

The Household Survey reports the official employment and unemployment numbers in this country, when you touted all those jobs Obama created you

first ignored that the employment dropped over 4 million after his stimulus and was still down 3 million the year later(2010)

second, that 146 million were employed when the recession began and Obama was in Congress, a Congress controlled by the Democrats

third the official employment numbers included part time for economic reasons from the Household survey and Obama set records with those numbers, over 8 million every month during his first term.

I posted the actual bls.gov data from the Household survey that obviously you ignored and apparently will never admit being wrong. I stand by the data and stand by my statement that Obama was a failure, your support for Obama's policies show indoctrination by the left, and the recovery was the worst in history.

The official unemployment rate was skewed by PTFER as it always will be. Trump 4.3 million February 2019, Obama 5.7 million January 2017 and over 8 million during his entire first term

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS12032194
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level - Part-Time for Economic Reasons, All Industries
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Hours at work: 1 to 34 hours
Reasons work not as scheduled: Economic reasons
Worker status/schedules: At work part time
Years: 2008 to 2019

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 4846 4902 4904 5220 5286 5540 5930 5851 6148 6690 7311 8029
2009 8046 8796 9145 8908 9113 9024 8891 9029 8847 8979 9114 9098
2010 8530 8936 9233 9178 8845 8577 8500 8800 9246 8837 8873 8935
2011 8470 8464 8645 8652 8576 8427 8281 8788 9166 8657 8447 8171
2012 8305 8238 7775 7913 8101 8072 8082 7974 8671 8203 8166 7943

2013 8151 8178 7722 7964 7937 8103 8099 7816 7764 7936 7718 7827
2014 7296 7299 7435 7509 7254 7422 7402 7177 7020 7025 6898 6856
2015 6808 6671 6629 6608 6628 6383 6249 6423 6043 5811 6174 6084
2016 5941 5978 6066 6006 6467 5748 5926 5995 5918 5971 5738 5621
2017 5753 5603 5455 5279 5234 5266 5281 5237 5179 4912 4866 4986
2018 4982 5115 4969 4952 4920 4736 4588 4368 4656 4630 4781 4657
2019 5147 4300
 
The Household Survey reports the official employment and unemployment numbers in this country, when you touted all those jobs Obama created you

For the third time, I do not use the household survey to compare employment levels because it is a less accurate indicator, isn't adjusted, nor was the metric designed to be used in this capacity. It is to derive the unemployment rate.

Hence I will not use it to describe job creation.....

first ignored that the employment dropped over 4 million after his stimulus and was still down 3 million the year later(2010)

I've done nothing of the sort. We were recovering from the most disastrous financial crisis since the 1930`s. Your faux expectations are of zero concern.

The rest of your post is just a regurgitated chunk of trash that's already been addressed years ago. You may continue to to wet your panties over Obama until your post count reaches 500000, it still doesn't validate your very partisan opinion.
 
Last edited:
For the third time, I do not use the household survey to compare employment levels because it is a less accurate indicator, isn't adjusted, nor was the metric designed to be used in this capacity. It is to derive the unemployment rate.

Hence I will not use it to describe job creation.....



I've done nothing of the sort. We were recovering from the most disastrous financial crisis since the 1930`s. Your faux expectations are of zero concern.

The rest of your post is just a regurgitated chunk of trash that's already been addressed years ago. You may continue to to wet your panties over Obama until your post count reaches 500000, it still doesn't validate your very partisan opinion.

I really don't give a **** what you use to post your graphs, the official report is the HOUSEHOLD SURVEY and what is touted here. Reality sucks for you, doesn't it? That most disastrous financial crisis is nothing more than regurgitated leftwing rhetoric and opinion as it was a world recession that affected other countries a lot more than anyone in this country and you ought to know that. Foreign governments rely on gov't spending for most of their economy which is why the world economy was slower to recover than ours although Obama made that case and did nothing to provide incentive for the private sector thus the worst recovery from a recession in U.S. history.

Recessions are measured many ways but the best way to measure American pain is to use the misery index and actual numbers of Americans affected. You are going to continue to spout your European model and make it ours, that is a lie and a distortion.
 
Last edited:
I really don't give a **** what you use to post your graphs, the official report is the HOUSEHOLD SURVEY and what is touted here.

This is demonstrably false.!!!

The official job creation report by the BLS focuses on the establishment survey, and relies on the household survey for the unemployment rate. This has been explained to you as though you were 5 more times than necessary, and still you cling to your ignorance. It's all you have left.

That most disastrous financial crisis is nothing more than regurgitated leftwing rhetoric and opinion as it was a world recession that affected other countries a lot more than anyone in this country and you ought to know that.

This set lies only need be pointed out. It was the most severe downturn since the great depression.

Foreign governments rely on gov't spending for most of their economy which is why the world economy was slower to recover than ours

More blathering ignorance. Economies that rely more on government spending are less affected by private sector market failure. This is basic....

Thus the worst recovery from a recession in U.S. history.

Another lie. It's been pointed out to you multiple times that the worst economic recoveries were from the Long Depression and Great Depression respectively. You don't win arguments armed with ignorance.

best way to measure American pain is to use the misery index and actual numbers of Americans affected. You are going to continue to spout your European model and make it ours, that is a lie and a distortion.

Unfortunately for you and your partisan belief structure, the National Bureau of Economic Research doesn't hold your opinion with any esteem. Maybe you should call them to and alert them of your development.

You are 0-4 this round. I can highlight your knowledge and reasoning deficiencies all day.

:lamo
 
Last edited:
This is demonstrably false.!!!

The official job creation report by the BLS focuses on the establishment survey, and relies on the household survey for the unemployment rate. This has been explained to you as though you were 5 more times than necessary, and still you cling to your ignorance. It's all you have left.



This set lies only need be pointed out. It was the most severe downturn since the great depression.



More blathering ignorance. Economies that rely more on government spends are less affected by private sector market failure. This is basic....



Another lie. It's been pointed out to you multiple times that the worst economic recoveries were from the Long Depression and Great Depression respectively. You don't win arguments armed with ignorance.



Unfortunately for you and your partisan belief structure, the National Bureau of Economic Research doesn't hold your opinion with any esteem. Maybe you sold call them to and alter them of your development. :lamo

We are done, sick and tired of dealing with total asses
 
We are done, sick and tired of dealing with total asses

You are not very knowledgeable on the subject and refuse to learn. This is why you fail!!! :2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom