• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

If Trump Refuses to Concede

Before I can agree with your claim that the debate should be focused on how the economy is going to be fixed, you need to explain how you conclude that it needs fixing. The US economy is in fine shape. GDP has grown in 33 of the last 40 quarters (10 years); Inflation is low, the DJIA is above 18,000 (it peaked at 14,000 just before the 2008 recession, so it has more than recovered from that setback).

Wages and unemployment/underemployment are still a problem, but not one that is so pressing as to warrant being the sole focus of political debate.

What part of the economy do you think is so problematic? It seems to me that the economy is pretty good, and that it is claimed to be in desperate need of a 'fix' only by slime-ball politicians who claim to know what that 'fix' should be.

Borrowing is the biggest problem The US debt under the current government has gone from US$10 trillion to around US$18 trillion. One day this could hit America with austerity measures.

Americans on Food Stamps — 33 million then, 46 million now: up 39.5 percent.
Americans who own homes: down 5.6 percent.

These are indications of some bigger problem that are blowing into the US.
How do does the US therefore stimulate growth where the only reason unemployment dropped is because many seem to have taken themselves off the unemployment register.

Well, I'm sorry to point out the obvious but Trump advocates increased spending and dramatically lower taxes. I'm no expert, but that strategy has been shown to increase the deficit. What am I missing?
 
Borrowing is the biggest problem The US debt under the current government has gone from US$10 trillion to around US$18 trillion. One day this could hit America with austerity measures.

Americans on Food Stamps — 33 million then, 46 million now: up 39.5 percent.
Americans who own homes: down 5.6 percent.

These are indications of some bigger problem that are blowing into the US.
How do does the US therefore stimulate growth where the only reason unemployment dropped is because many seem to have taken themselves off the unemployment register.

Well, I'm sorry to point out the obvious but Trump advocates increased spending and dramatically lower taxes. I'm no expert, but that strategy has been shown to increase the deficit. What am I missing?

I wasn't speaking on behalf of Trump but if this is the case with no strategy to address the debt, then just like with Republicans and Democrats before, the deficit could only climb maybe by a few trillion.
 
Well, I'm sorry to point out the obvious but Trump advocates increased spending and dramatically lower taxes. I'm no expert, but that strategy has been shown to increase the deficit. What am I missing?

I wasn't speaking on behalf of Trump but if this is the case with no strategy to address the debt, then just like with Republicans and Democrats before, the deficit could only climb maybe by a few trillion.
The last two Democrat Presidents reduced annual deficits.
 
I wasn't speaking on behalf of Trump but if this is the case with no strategy to address the debt, then just like with Republicans and Democrats before, the deficit could only climb maybe by a few trillion.
The last two Democrat Presidents reduced annual deficits.

THey may have said they will reduce the deficit but they increased the deficits, just like the Republicans

We can take Bush (including bailing out banksters) and Obama


https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296


Barack Obama - The national debt grew the most dollar-wise during President Obama's two terms. He added $6.494 trillion, a 56% increase, in seven years. Obama's budgets included the economic stimulus package. It added $787 billion by cutting taxes, extending unemployment benefits, and funding job-creating public works projects. The Obama tax cuts added $858 billion to the debt in two years. Obama's budget included increased defense spending to between $700 billion and $800 billion a year. Federal income was down, thanks to lower tax receipts from the 2008 financial crisis.


He also sponsored the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It was designed to reduce the debt by $143 billion over ten years. But these savings didn't show up until the later years. For more, see National Debt Under Obama.

George W. Bush - President Bush added the second greatest amount to the debt, at $5.849 trillion. But that was a 101% increase to the debt. It was $5.8 trillion on September 30, 2001. That's the end of FY 2001, which was President Clinton's last budget. Bush responded to the 9/11 attacks by launching the War on Terror. That drove military spending to record levels of between $600-$800 billion a year. It included the Iraq War, which cost $807.5 billion. President Bush also responded to the 2001 recession by passing EGTRRA and JGTRRA. These were known as the Bush tax cuts and they further reduced revenue. He approved a $700 billion bailout package for banks to combat the 2008 global financial crisis. Both Presidents Bush and Obama had to contend with higher mandatory spending for Social Security and Medicare. For more, see President Obama Compared to President Bush Policies.
 
But what about this?

We don’t have a trillion-dollar deficit; the deficit isn’t the ultimate problem; and it’s not growing.
Strong growth in individual tax collection drove the U.S. budget deficit to a fresh Obama-era low in fiscal 2015, the Treasury Department said Thursday.

For the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 the shortfall was $439 billion, a decrease of 9%, or $44 billion, from last year. The deficit is the smallest of Barack Obama’s presidency and the lowest since 2007 in both dollar terms and as a percentage of gross domestic product.
Keep in mind, in the Obama era, the deficit has shrunk by $1 trillion. That’s “trillion,” with a “t.” As a percentage of the economy, the deficit is now down to just 2.5%, which is below the average of the past half-century, and down from 9.8% when the president took office.

Note: I'm not trying to be snarky, I actually would like to know what people that know more about this than I do think about it.
 
The last two Democrat Presidents reduced annual deficits.

THey may have said they will reduce the deficit but they increased the deficits, just like the Republicans
Increased the debt, not the deficits. Clinton came as close to a surplus by a long shot.

Barack Obama - The national debt grew the most dollar-wise during President Obama's two terms. He added $6.494 trillion, a 56% increase, in seven years. Obama's budgets included the economic stimulus package. It added $787 billion by cutting taxes, extending unemployment benefits, and funding job-creating public works projects. The Obama tax cuts added $858 billion to the debt in two years. Obama's budget included increased defense spending to between $700 billion and $800 billion a year. Federal income was down, thanks to lower tax receipts from the 2008 financial crisis.
Most of his debt came from the sharp revenue drop. Seriously, how many fucking times do we have to go over this?

SPENDING
In 2009, W's last budget, the outlays were $3.5 trillion. In 2015 they were $3.7 trillion.

Spending in 2002, W's first budget, the outlays were $2.0 trillion. In 2007, which is before TARP, the outlays were $2.7 trillion.

DEFICIT
In 2001, the deficit was -128 billion ("surplus"). Between 2002 and 2008, it ran from 160 to 460 billion.

In 2009, the deficit was 1,400 billion, but has steadily decreased to 440 billion by 2015.

REVENUE
It would take until 2013 from tax revenue to eclipse that of 2008, the full blown start of the Great Recession. This obviously had a large impact on the annual deficits under Obama, and wasn't going to be corrected overnight. Even just assuming revenue remained constant with 2008, that would be $1.1 trillion lost in revenue. Assuming reasonable growth, that would be closer to $1.5 to $2 trillion, the total loss in revenue from the recession Obama was about to inherit.

Do the fucking math!
 
I would hope, if Trump refuses to concede, that the GOP would come down on him like a ton of bricks and rescind any scrap of support they had theretofore extended. That no apparatus of the GOP would assist in his complaint or act on his direction.
 
I would hope, if Trump refuses to concede, that the GOP would come down on him like a ton of bricks and rescind any scrap of support they had theretofore extended. That no apparatus of the GOP would assist in his complaint or act on his direction.

It would be delicious if they decided not to pay the rent Trump charges them for hosting his own events at his own tacky country clubs and hotels... just say they weren't satisfied.
 
Clinton however turned a stable dictatorship (Libya) with the highest per capita income in Africa to a bloodbath, giving ISIS an opportunity to seize territory.

Why is Clinton to blame for that? Wasn't Obama the Commander-in-chief then?
 
Clinton however turned a stable dictatorship (Libya) with the highest per capita income in Africa to a bloodbath, giving ISIS an opportunity to seize territory.

Why is Clinton to blame for that? Wasn't Obama the Commander-in-chief then?

Yabut, take that away and all that the trumpsuckers have is "eeeeeemails!". By now they've repeated the "you wrecked the middle east" lie so loudly and so often, that it is ingrained as a fact in the trumpsucker consciousness*.

* If you can call it that
 
If Hillary hadn't deleted all the classified emails she wrote while Secretary of State, we'd know whether or not she was responsible instead of needing to guess. :mad:
 
If Hillary hadn't deleted all the classified emails she wrote while Secretary of State, we'd know whether or not she was responsible instead of needing to guess. :mad:

If they were that damning, Uncle Vlad would have released them by now.
 
If Hillary hadn't deleted all the classified emails she wrote while Secretary of State, we'd know whether or not she was responsible instead of needing to guess. :mad:

If they were that damning, Uncle Vlad would have released them by now.

But if they weren't damning, she would have taken up Trump's offer to release his tax returns if she released her emails. ;)
 
THey may have said they will reduce the deficit but they increased the deficits, just like the Republicans
Increased the debt, not the deficits. Clinton came as close to a surplus by a long shot.

Barack Obama - The national debt grew the most dollar-wise during President Obama's two terms. He added $6.494 trillion, a 56% increase, in seven years. Obama's budgets included the economic stimulus package. It added $787 billion by cutting taxes, extending unemployment benefits, and funding job-creating public works projects. The Obama tax cuts added $858 billion to the debt in two years. Obama's budget included increased defense spending to between $700 billion and $800 billion a year. Federal income was down, thanks to lower tax receipts from the 2008 financial crisis.
Most of his debt came from the sharp revenue drop. Seriously, how many fucking times do we have to go over this?

SPENDING
In 2009, W's last budget, the outlays were $3.5 trillion. In 2015 they were $3.7 trillion.

Spending in 2002, W's first budget, the outlays were $2.0 trillion. In 2007, which is before TARP, the outlays were $2.7 trillion.

DEFICIT
In 2001, the deficit was -128 billion ("surplus"). Between 2002 and 2008, it ran from 160 to 460 billion.

In 2009, the deficit was 1,400 billion, but has steadily decreased to 440 billion by 2015.

REVENUE
It would take until 2013 from tax revenue to eclipse that of 2008, the full blown start of the Great Recession. This obviously had a large impact on the annual deficits under Obama, and wasn't going to be corrected overnight. Even just assuming revenue remained constant with 2008, that would be $1.1 trillion lost in revenue. Assuming reasonable growth, that would be closer to $1.5 to $2 trillion, the total loss in revenue from the recession Obama was about to inherit.

Do the fucking math!

It is futile to discuss this with someone who thinks that 'debt' and 'deficit' are synonymous.
 
Clinton however turned a stable dictatorship (Libya) with the highest per capita income in Africa to a bloodbath, giving ISIS an opportunity to seize territory.

Why is Clinton to blame for that? Wasn't Obama the Commander-in-chief then?

There was a revolt in Libya against Khaddafi. He sent a large armed force to attack Benghazi which would have all but levelled that city and killed thousands. The attack on Libya was to avoid a savage human catastrophe. To have done nothing would have been disaster. No matter what happened, the GOP would have used it as a political stick to beat Clinton. YMMV.
 
Clinton however turned a stable dictatorship (Libya) with the highest per capita income in Africa to a bloodbath, giving ISIS an opportunity to seize territory.

Why is Clinton to blame for that? Wasn't Obama the Commander-in-chief then?

It's a category error to tell you the truth. It was a popular uprising, which would have happened regardless of international involvement, and after the uprising happened the UN imposed a no-fly-zone which included USAF involvement.

Mind you in all of the mention of the halcyon days in Libya our resident posters have forgotten to mention the ICRC claims which were broken in Al Jazeera (that mouthpiece of Western propaganda) of the boner pill fueled rapes of prisoners, including children, as a weapon of war by the regime.

http://www.aljazeera.com/video/africa/2011/03/201132845516144204.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/23/libyan-children-suffering-rape
 
If Hillary hadn't deleted all the classified emails she wrote while Secretary of State, we'd know whether or not she was responsible instead of needing to guess. :mad:

If they were that damning, Uncle Vlad would have released them by now.

Not if they were sent on a private server. That is obviously why none of them were hacked-had they ben sent on a government server, they probably would have been.

Besides, the email issue is a non-issue. Clinton broke IT regs at State. The FBI found that her actions didn't meet the criminal threshold, and if they had they would have prosecuted. The FBI has a good track record of going after those in power when they actually break the law.

This is like white water and Benghazi-the republicans have spent literally hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars going after the Clintons and have never got anything to stick, except Bill's lying under oath in a civil deposition. Clue: I doubt if there has ever been a civil case where someone didn't lie under oath and there is virtually never a perjury charge involved.

anyway, this has become the republican model, avoid governing by diverting attention to these ridiculous sideshows. a lot of people appear to eat it up.
 
Back
Top Bottom