25% Of The Total National Debt Over The Last 230 Years Occurred Under The Trump Administration

[pknopp]

Debt rose 2.5 trillion under Rs in congress, 2017-2019. Debt rose 7 trillion when dems controlled congress from 2019-2021.

They didn't control Congress from 2019-2021. They controlled the House.

 

[LeftofLeft]

“We don’t like it when Republicans do it, and, it’s Republicans’ fault but we need to increase debt limits now.”

 

[Independentthinker]

If you look carefully at the derived numbers in that chart you will see that it has been constructed to deceive. The actual ratio of revenue to GDP is never mentioned...that is not an oversight it is intentional. Under Trump it improved by leaps and bounds and still is improving. With the changing value of the dollar due to FED RESERVE actions those numbers will change daily in fact. The Chart is only good for a few minutes ...after that it's old news.

Here is some real news that is actually relevant

U.S. sees biggest revenue surge in 44 years despite pandemic

Revenues jumped 18 percent in the fiscal year that just ended, analysts say — the biggest one-year increase since 1977.

www.politico.com

That's the way it always is with leftists. They claim they only deal in facts but they manipulate and cherry pick facts to their advantage and then refuse to accept anyone else's "facts".

 

[pknopp]

You are fixated on Trump due to your TDS.

You only see it that way. I have condemned Biden and the Dems in every budget thread. I hammered them for their massive spending without addressing taxes to pay for them like Biden promised. I have not supported a single spending bill of the last two years. (the last which was quite bipartisan)

But as I often times note, don't let that stop you.

It was both Republicans and Democrats who spent that money. I have asked you before and you have always dodged the question but I'll try one more time. Do you think we should not have spent the money due to the pandemic?

I have answered this before. Yes, we should not have spent the money.

 

[Independentthinker]

Debt rose 2.5 trillion under Rs in congress, 2017-2019. Debt rose 7 trillion when dems controlled congress from 2019-2021.

You have a point there, however Trump did sign off on it. And, a good chunk of that was due to the pandemic, money that both sides realized had to be spent, like it or not, and then subsequently each party blames the other for the money spent.

 

[Couchpotato]

I never said it was corrupt. I said the corruption aspect is NOT mandatory. Please read what I actually say, not what you wrongly translate me saying.

Yeah, you did dummy. You said the corruption in the programs wasn't mandatory. The funding of the programs whether you believe they are corrupt or not is mandatory until the Congress passes a law making them not so. Your opinion of those programs is irrelevant to whether they are funded or not. Even if you are correct and every aspect of one of these programs is completely and utterly corrupt, the spending for that program IS STILL FUCKING MANDATORY. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?

Again, I never said that. But don't let that stop you.

Well what are you saying then? Because we are talking about discretionary spending vs non-discretionary spending. One is mandatory and the other isnt. Are you off on some inane tangent that isnt remotely related to the subject at hand again?

 

[pknopp]

Yeah, you did dummy. You said the corruption in the programs wasn't mandatory.

That is correct. Note: That is not saying the program is corrupt but we are not obligated to fund the corruption in the programs.

I can't understand what this is so hard to understand.

The funding of the programs whether you believe they are corrupt or not is mandatory until the Congress passes a law making them not so.

Wrong, there is no need for a law to address the corruption in any program.

Only a will to do it.

Your opinion of those programs is irrelevant to whether they are funded or not. Even if you are correct and every aspect of one of these programs is completely and utterly corrupt,

I've never argued that.

Quit trying to make me say things I've never said.

the spending for that program IS STILL FUCKING MANDATORY. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?

Well what are you saying then? Because we are talking about discretionary spending vs non-discretionary spending. One is mandatory and the other isnt. Are you off on some inane tangent that isnt remotely related to the subject at hand again?

I can only say it 30 times.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

You have a point there, however Trump did sign off on it. And, a good chunk of that was due to the pandemic, money that both sides realized had to be spent, like it or not, and then subsequently each party blames the other for the money spent.

Oh for sure. Trumps not getting a pass. He signed off on it.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

They didn't control Congress from 2019-2021. They controlled the House.

All money appropriations begin in the house. Thats what I was referring to and Rs controlled the house from 2017-2019 and dems controlled the house from 2019-2021. Trump doesn't get a pass though.

 

[pknopp]

All money appropriations begin in the house. Thats what I was referring to and Rs controlled the house from 2017-2019 and dems controlled the house from 2019-2021. Trump doesn't get a pass though.

It does begin there. And then the Senate can change it and send it back.

All I've ever said is NONE of them get a pass.

 

[BackAgain]

Can you say Corona Virus?

Surely you have heard of it

It was in all the newspapers.

 

[Aldo Raine]

Wait............didn't Trump claim his tax cut for the rich would end up paying off the debt in 10 years?

The numbers are in, and Trump's tax cut didn't reduce the deficit â despite his many promisesÂ

Presidents often make extravagant claims for their policies. But rarely are they proven so false so fast as Donald Trump's claims about tax cuts and deficits. Even as growth has accelerated, the Treasury reported that the 2018 deficit swelled to $779 billion. That level, the highest in six...

www.cnbc.com

I thought he said 8. But really what's the difference neither had a chance in hell of happening.

 

[Couchpotato]

That is correct. Note: That is not saying the program is corrupt but we are not obligated to fund the corruption in the programs.

I can't understand what this is so hard to understand.

How do you not fund just the "corruption" within the program. Mind you what you're calling corruption is just YOUR opinion. We also have to assume the program is running within the bounds of what the legislature has proscribed. If it isnt that's a separate issue, which has zero to do with the mandatory funding aspect of that program.

Wrong, there is no need for a law to address the corruption in any program.

Only a will to do it.

Ok so Im willing, you're willing. Is it eliminated yet? How about now?
...............
..............
..............
...............
...............
.................
..................
....................
..........................
Now?

I've never argued that.

Quit trying to make me say things I've never said.

What you're saying has zero to do with the thread topic or what I was addressing. If you'd like to talk about corruption within government programs feel free to start a thread on that, or make a post about it. If you quote me I can only assume you are talking about what I posted otherwise why quote it? You cant quote a post and then get indignant when everyone assumes your post is about the subject that post is addressing.

I can only say it 30 times.

You can say it 100 times it's will always be, not what we are talking about in this thread.

 

[Mac-7]

It was in all the newspapers.

They even mentioned it on CNN once or twice

 

[pknopp]

How do you not fund just the "corruption" within the program.

You cut their budgets and you tell the head of the agency that if any actual services are cut they are fired.

Mind you what you're calling corruption is just YOUR opinion. We also have to assume the program is running within the bounds of what the legislature has proscribed. If it isnt that's a separate issue, which has zero to do with the mandatory funding aspect of that program.

If you want to pretend their is no corruption (and everything else I noted) well......................

Ok so Im willing, you're willing. Is it eliminated yet? How about now?
...............
..............
..............
...............
...............
.................
..................
....................
..........................
Now?



What you're saying has zero to do with the thread topic or what I was addressing. If you'd like to talk about corruption within government programs feel free to start a thread on that, or make a post about it. If you quote me I can only assume you are talking about what I posted otherwise why quote it? You cant quote a post and then get indignant when everyone assumes your post is about the subject that post is addressing.


You can say it 100 times it's will always be, not what we are talking about in this thread.

We can pass a bill that BOTH funds the government AND makes cuts.

 

[BackAgain]

They even mentioned it on CNN once or twice

True dat!

 

[Couchpotato]

You cut their budgets and you tell the head of the agency that if any actual services are cut they are fired.

Guess what that takes.... Legislation.

If you want to pretend their is no corruption (and everything else I noted) well......................

Not what I said.

We can pass a bill that BOTH funds the government AND makes cuts.

Pass a bill? That sounds an awful lot like legislation. I thought that we didn't need anything but the will to do it.



So you agree with me that unless Congress passes legislation changing it the mandatory spending currently on the books must be made.

Thanks!

 

[pknopp]

Guess what that takes.... Legislation.



Not what I said.


Pass a bill? That sounds an awful lot like legislation. I thought that we didn't need anything but the will to do it.



So you agree with me that unless Congress passes legislation changing it the mandatory spending currently on the books must be made.

Thanks!

No. I disagree. I'm good with it all falling apart if we won't fix it.

 

[Couchpotato]

No. I disagree. I'm good with it all falling apart if we won't fix it.

WTF are you babbling about? Seriously you make less and less sense with each post.

 

[blackhawk]

This is one of the dumber threads of the week.