The idea that Americans think putting republicans in power will improve the economy is just nonsense as always

[Nostra]

More than Trump, who proposed more than Obama who proposed more than Bush II....and then you dumb fucks blame all 31 trillion dollars in debt on the "other side:

so you don't know

 

[Stryder50]

Under Trump it was 7.8 trillion. Even if it was 7, it’s 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. It’s possible Trump’s contribution using that same metric is lower than 7.8. The debt is a very nuanced topic lol. It’s 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 won’t deny Biden has spent a lot so far. Of course It is only two years. It’s not like it makes sense to assume he would spend at the same pace as he is now. That’s a pretty simple minded way of looking at it.

I’m curious though. Why is it okay with you Trump’s contribution would be 7 trillion? You trying to downplay it like you were is such an eye roll dude.

Donald Trump Built a National Debt So Big (Even Before the Pandemic) That It’ll Weigh Down the Economy for Years

www.propublica.org

How Trump's national debt of $23 trillion compares to Obama, Bush, Clinton

The pace at which Trump has added to the national debt isn't as surprising as it might initially look.

www.businessinsider.com

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:

• 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.

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.
...
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 — 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]

 

[westwall]

View attachment 712939

YOU, are the fool voting for fascism.

 

[Billy000]

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:

• 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.

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.
...
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 — 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.

Lol I love you try desperately for your “nuance” in my article yet your final point is questioning my source? Does that mean you don’t trust your points being made? Talk about being a moron.

We’ve 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 Obama’s two terms vs Trump’s one term is somehow irrelevant to their contributions to the debt. Obviously that matters.

Why does it matter? Because Obama’s deficit contribution is basically equaled to Trump’s. The deficit under Obama went up by 6.7 trillion and Trump’s was 6.6 trillion. You want to be like “well Obama’s contribution is bigger!”. While that’s true, obviously the amount of time matters here. I mean it’s 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. Trump’s 2017 tax cut was a major driving force of his deficit contribution. It’s the most salient point about democrat vs republican policy but you want to pretend it doesn’t matter.

 

[Stryder50]

Lol I love you try desperately for your “nuance” in my article yet your final point is questioning my source? Does that mean you don’t trust your points being made? Talk about being a moron.

We’ve 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 Obama’s two terms vs Trump’s one term is somehow irrelevant to their contributions to the debt. Obviously that matters.

Why does it matter? Because Obama’s deficit contribution is basically equaled to Trump’s. The deficit under Obama went up by 6.7 trillion and Trump’s was 6.6 trillion. You want to be like “well Obama’s contribution is bigger!”. While that’s true, obviously the amount of time matters here. I mean it’s 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. Trump’s 2017 tax cut was a major driving force of his deficit contribution. It’s the most salient point about democrat vs republican policy but you want to pretend it doesn’t matter.

Repeat of my post in #87 here, earlier;
...
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]

You are correct.
The duopoly will continue to make this worse.
VOTE THIRD PARTY FOR ONCE YOU FUCKING IDIOTS

We did, TRUMP

 

[Redfish]

Not to say both sides aren't guilty of overspending, but Obama also created massive debt
to help get this ball rolling.

obozo is their hero, do not denigrate their idol who they worship.

 

[Billy000]

Repeat of my post in #87 here, earlier;
...
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.

Uh well that’s all well and good but revenue as a percentage of GDP went down under Bush and Trump either way.

 

[Redfish]

Uh well that’s all well and good but revenue as a percentage of GDP went down under Bush and Trump either way.

lol, because GDP went up, not very good at math are you?

 

[Billy000]

lol, because GDP went up, not very good at math are you?

That isn’t how it works. If the tax cut is large enough, GDP isn’t going to matter. More importantly, GDP went down under Bush. We had two recessions for fuck’s 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]

Uh well that’s all well and good but revenue as a percentage of GDP went down under Bush and Trump either way.

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]

That isn’t how it works. If the tax cut is large enough, GDP isn’t going to matter. More importantly, GDP went down under Bush. We had two recessions for fuck’s sake. The latter was the worse since the Great Depression. Thanks to Obama, that recession he inherited ended 6 months into his first term.

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]

That isn’t how it works. If the tax cut is large enough, GDP isn’t going to matter. More importantly, GDP went down under Bush. We had two recessions for fuck’s sake. The latter was the worse since the Great Depression. Thanks to Obama, that recession he inherited ended 6 months into his first term.

That isn’t how it works. If the tax cut is large enough, GDP isn’t going to matter. More importantly, GDP went down under Bush. We had two recessions for fuck’s sake. The latter was the worse since the Great Depression. Thanks to Obama, that recession he inherited ended 6 months into his first term.

you say you are a socialist and you want to lecture us on the wonders of capitalism? very strange.

 

[Billy000]

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?

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 I’m saying completely irrelevant, you would have to admit the GDP growth under Obama each year and in Biden’s first year was happening as well. I’m sure it would pain you to admit that lol

 

[Billy000]

Based upon inertia of actions started by Bush towards the end of his term, and being the carryover Obama likes to claim credit for.

Lol the actions of Bush at the end of his term? Dude you’re just making shit up right now. He didn’t do shit. God you lack any objectivity, don’t you? You’re just going to knee jerk assume republicans are responsible for anything good and democrats anything bad.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Uh well that’s all well and good but revenue as a percentage of GDP went down under Bush and Trump either way.

People got to keep more of their money?

That's awful!

What could be worse than that? DURR

 

[Billy000]

People got to keep more of their money?

That's awful!

What could be worse than that? DURR

Two recessions under Bush lol

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thanks to Obama, that recession he inherited ended 6 months into his first term.

What did that demtwat do to end the recession by June 2009?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Two recessions under Bush lol

Yup.