Nostra
Diamond Member
- Oct 7, 2019
- 77,042
- 67,851
- 3,615
so you don't know
The idea that Americans think putting republicans in power will improve the economy is just nonsense as always
- Thread starter Billy000
- Start date
Stryder50
Platinum Member
Point was, you are neither accurate in your numbers, nor in the concepts.Under Trump it was 7.8 trillion. Even if it was 7, itās a stupid thing to argue about.
According to the source below, for Obama, strictly in terms of the time, between presidential inaugurations, the debt went up 3.46 trillion. Itās possible Trumpās contribution using that same metric is lower than 7.8. The debt is a very nuanced topic lol. Itās hard to be sure about what sources say because they might it measure differently. Either way, the debt under Trump was roughly twice as much as Obama in terms one term vs two terms.
I wonāt deny Biden has spent a lot so far. Of course It is only two years. Itās not like it makes sense to assume he would spend at the same pace as he is now. Thatās a pretty simple minded way of looking at it.
Iām curious though. Why is it okay with you Trumpās contribution would be 7 trillion? You trying to downplay it like you were is such an eye roll dude.
The national debt just barreled past $23 trillion. Here's how Trump's $3 trillion portion compares to Obama, Bush, and Clinton.
The pace at which Trump has added to the national debt isn't as surprising as it might initially look.www.businessinsider.com
Such as a closer look at that link. Start with the title;
The national debt just barreled past $23 trillion. Here's how Trump's $3 trillion portion compares to Obama, Bush, and Clinton.
Already see some distortion in what you are claiming. Then, this excerpt;...
The accumulation in percentage terms adds another perspective:
- The federal debt increased by 19% through November 1 of Clinton's first term in office and grew by 36% through fiscal 2000, the last of his presidency.
- For Bush, the debt grew by 20% through the same date and ended up swelling by 36% at the end of fiscal 2008.
- The debt surged by 41% in Obama's first 1,012 days in office, ultimately ballooning by about 84% as fiscal 2016 drew to a close.
- Under Trump, the debt has grown by roughly 15% in three years so far, and the Congressional Budget Office projected that it could swell by 43% more by the end of fiscal 2024 at current spending levels.
...
In many ways, percentages give a better perspective than actual numbers, especially due to the inflation factor("nuance"). This also from your link;
...
Marc Goldwein, the policy chief for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, told Business Insider that there had been a substantial shift in Washington's approach to federal spending in the past several years. Under Obama, Republicans championed fiscal responsibility and called to reduce the deficit ā now they've largely tossed it aside.
Instead of cutting the deficit, he said, both parties are competing to ramp up spending on domestic programs as well as defense.
"Democrats wanted to do it with tax increases, and Republicans wanted to do it mainly with spending cuts, but what they were fighting about was who had the better plan to reduce deficits," Goldwein said. "Now it seems they're fighting over who can promise more in spending increases and tax cuts."
While Goldwein said that while the debt could lead to "slower economic growth" in the "medium or long term," it doesn't damage the economy as much in the short term.
"Just by the virtue of the fact that interest rates are lower, it's certainly true that each dollar of debt is less than a threat than we thought eight years ago," he said.
...
The national debt just barreled past $23 trillion. Here's how Trump's $3 trillion portion compares to Obama, Bush, and Clinton.
The pace at which Trump has added to the national debt isn't as surprising as it might initially look.
www.businessinsider.com
BTW, another nuance would be how objective one might consider "Business Insider" to be.
Lakhota
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #285
Lol I love you try desperately for your ānuanceā in my article yet your final point is questioning my source? Does that mean you donāt trust your points being made? Talk about being a moron.Point was, you are neither accurate in your numbers, nor in the concepts.
Such as a closer look at that link. Start with the title;
The national debt just barreled past $23 trillion. Here's how Trump's $3 trillion portion compares to Obama, Bush, and Clinton.
Already see some distortion in what you are claiming. Then, this excerpt;
...
The accumulation in percentage terms adds another perspective:
Conventional economic thinking maintains that deficits will decrease when the economy is healthy as the government pulls back on spending and draws more tax money as a result of lower unemployment.
- The federal debt increased by 19% through November 1 of Clinton's first term in office and grew by 36% through fiscal 2000, the last of his presidency.
- For Bush, the debt grew by 20% through the same date and ended up swelling by 36% at the end of fiscal 2008.
- The debt surged by 41% in Obama's first 1,012 days in office, ultimately ballooning by about 84% as fiscal 2016 drew to a close.
- Under Trump, the debt has grown by roughly 15% in three years so far, and the Congressional Budget Office projected that it could swell by 43% more by the end of fiscal 2024 at current spending levels.
...
In many ways, percentages give a better perspective than actual numbers, especially due to the inflation factor("nuance"). This also from your link;
...
Marc Goldwein, the policy chief for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, told Business Insider that there had been a substantial shift in Washington's approach to federal spending in the past several years. Under Obama, Republicans championed fiscal responsibility and called to reduce the deficit ā now they've largely tossed it aside.
Instead of cutting the deficit, he said, both parties are competing to ramp up spending on domestic programs as well as defense.
"Democrats wanted to do it with tax increases, and Republicans wanted to do it mainly with spending cuts, but what they were fighting about was who had the better plan to reduce deficits," Goldwein said. "Now it seems they're fighting over who can promise more in spending increases and tax cuts."
While Goldwein said that while the debt could lead to "slower economic growth" in the "medium or long term," it doesn't damage the economy as much in the short term.
"Just by the virtue of the fact that interest rates are lower, it's certainly true that each dollar of debt is less than a threat than we thought eight years ago," he said.
...
The national debt just barreled past $23 trillion. Here's how Trump's $3 trillion portion compares to Obama, Bush, and Clinton.
The pace at which Trump has added to the national debt isn't as surprising as it might initially look.
BTW, another nuance would be how objective one might consider "Business Insider" to be.
Weāve been talking a lot about the debt but we should be putting more emphasis on the deficit. That is how budget is actually affected by policy. Also, I want to point out how stupid it is you think Obamaās two terms vs Trumpās one term is somehow irrelevant to their contributions to the debt. Obviously that matters.
Why does it matter? Because Obamaās deficit contribution is basically equaled to Trumpās. The deficit under Obama went up by 6.7 trillion and Trumpās was 6.6 trillion. You want to be like āwell Obamaās contribution is bigger!ā. While thatās true, obviously the amount of time matters here. I mean itās a huge caveat to ignore dude. One term vs two terms.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/GettyImages-632231338-593f19175f9b58d58ab91c75.jpg)
U.S. Budget Deficit by President
Here are the budget deficits for each president back to Woodrow Wilson. Obama had the highest dollar increase, but Wilson had the biggest percentage rise.
You also clearly cherry picked my article to downplay the effect of tax cuts. Again, if spending goes up or stays the same, the deficit will increase if taxes are cut. That is basic economics. Trumpās 2017 tax cut was a major driving force of his deficit contribution. Itās the most salient point about democrat vs republican policy but you want to pretend it doesnāt matter.
Stryder50
Platinum Member
Repeat of my post in #87 here, earlier;Lol I love you try desperately for your ānuanceā in my article yet your final point is questioning my source? Does that mean you donāt trust your points being made? Talk about being a moron.
Weāve been talking a lot about the debt but we should be putting more emphasis on the deficit. That is how budget is actually affected by policy. Also, I want to point out how stupid it is you think Obamaās two terms vs Trumpās one term is somehow irrelevant to their contributions to the debt. Obviously that matters.
Why does it matter? Because Obamaās deficit contribution is basically equaled to Trumpās. The deficit under Obama went up by 6.7 trillion and Trumpās was 6.6 trillion. You want to be like āwell Obamaās contribution is bigger!ā. While thatās true, obviously the amount of time matters here. I mean itās a huge caveat to ignore dude. One term vs two terms.
U.S. Budget Deficit by President
Here are the budget deficits for each president back to Woodrow Wilson. Obama had the highest dollar increase, but Wilson had the biggest percentage rise.www.thebalancemoney.com
You also clearly cherry picked my article to downplay the effect of tax cuts. Again, if spending goes up or stays the same, the deficit will increase if taxes are cut. That is basic economics. Trumpās 2017 tax cut was a major driving force of his deficit contribution. Itās the most salient point about democrat vs republican policy but you want to pretend it doesnāt matter.
...
Which is larger?
4% of 100?
OR
2.5% of 200?
...
A larger GDP with a lower tax rate can yield large total tax revenues, than a lower GDP with higher tax rates.
elektra
Diamond Member
We did, TRUMP
Redfish
Diamond Member
obozo is their hero, do not denigrate their idol who they worship.
- Thread starter
- #289
Uh well thatās all well and good but revenue as a percentage of GDP went down under Bush and Trump either way.
Redfish
Diamond Member
lol, because GDP went up, not very good at math are you?
- Thread starter
- #291
That isnāt how it works. If the tax cut is large enough, GDP isnāt going to matter. More importantly, GDP went down under Bush. We had two recessions for fuckās sake. The latter was the worse since the Great Depression. Thanks to Obama, that recession he inherited ended 6 months into his first term.
Stryder50
Platinum Member
Percentages are only a part of the "picture" and only tell a portion of the full story~equation.
Devil's in the collective details.
Percentages may have gone down but revenues increased.
Do I need to repeat the post with OMB numbers from the US Debt Clock link?
Stryder50
Platinum Member
Based upon inertia of actions started by Bush towards the end of his term, and being the carryover Obama likes to claim credit for.
Redfish
Diamond Member
you say you are a socialist and you want to lecture us on the wonders of capitalism? very strange.
- Thread starter
- #295
Revenue in terms of raw dollars going up is not how you accurately measure the real effect of revenue. Raw dollars will always go up no matter what each year with the exception of years during recessions. Inflation of the dollar plays a key role in that as well. I mean if you want to pretend that GDP going up makes what Iām saying completely irrelevant, you would have to admit the GDP growth under Obama each year and in Bidenās first year was happening as well. Iām sure it would pain you to admit that lol
- Thread starter
- #296
Lol the actions of Bush at the end of his term? Dude youāre just making shit up right now. He didnāt do shit. God you lack any objectivity, donāt you? Youāre just going to knee jerk assume republicans are responsible for anything good and democrats anything bad.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
People got to keep more of their money?
That's awful!
What could be worse than that? DURR
- Thread starter
- #298
Two recessions under Bush lol
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
What did that demtwat do to end the recession by June 2009?
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Yup.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
ICE snatches denmark born father at his naturalisation hearing he commited no crimes- Started by Mortimer
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
