(11-17-2024, 11:36 AM)TDOSS Wrote: [ -> ] (11-16-2024, 03:24 PM)Bchbunnie4 Wrote: [ -> ]Which has nothing to do with what your post is about. People didn’t vote for Trump cuz they want to hang out and go to church with him.
Clearly those thousands of people who showed up at his rallies loathed him. They wanted to hear about quantitative easing.
Quote:You can stomp your feet and pitch a fit about it all you want, but it’s not going to change anything.
I’m stomping my feet? News to me.
Quote:Make your peace with it or it’s gonna be four really long years for you.
Yeah, that particular comment was about how easy duped the Trump supporters/voters are. Thanks for the confirmation of my thesis.
Awwww little [BLEEP] [BLEEP] punk crying again lololololol
![[Image: SyG4M.jpg]](https://s11.gifyu.com/images/SyG4M.jpg)
Stay away from the children..
The deficit has nothing to do with revenue and everything to do with spending.
.gif "Laughing")
Not even remotely logical.
(11-17-2024, 11:50 AM)TDOSS Wrote: [ -> ]The deficit has nothing to do with revenue and everything to do with spending.
Not even remotely logical.
Cry more little [BLEEP].. Cry for me you piece of [BLEEP]!!
![[Image: SyG4r.jpg]](https://s11.gifyu.com/images/SyG4r.jpg)
Leave the children alone..
(11-17-2024, 11:36 AM)TDOSS Wrote: [ -> ] (11-16-2024, 03:24 PM)Bchbunnie4 Wrote: [ -> ]Which has nothing to do with what your post is about. People didn’t vote for Trump cuz they want to hang out and go to church with him.
Clearly those thousands of people who showed up at his rallies loathed him. They wanted to hear about quantitative easing.
Quote:You can stomp your feet and pitch a fit about it all you want, but it’s not going to change anything.
I’m stomping my feet? News to me.
Quote:Make your peace with it or it’s gonna be four really long years for you.
Yeah, that particular comment was about how easy duped the Trump supporters/voters are. Thanks for the confirmation of my thesis.
Who said anything about loathing him? Still pulling stuff out your butt again.
You have done nothing but stomp your feet and pitch a fit since the election. It might be news to you, it’s not news to the rest of us that have read the many, many threads you have started because of your temper tantrums.
You voted for Kamala Harris, you have
absolutely no room to talk about being easily duped.
(11-17-2024, 10:48 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-17-2024, 10:37 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]We are confining this conversation to Trump's first year vs Trump's second year. Trump did not introduce any significant new spending in his first year. It went up automatically, again, due to the age of the population.
You're changing the subject to poverty rate now. We were talking about a graph, the graph showed cumulative debt over GDP on the y axis and year on the x axis.
Didn't have anything to do with poverty rates.
Obviously it's bad when the poverty rate goes up. But when you change the subject like that, I take it to mean you're conceding my point. Thanks!
No, my point was the graph was a distraction to the initial post of this string which was mainly unsubstantiated BS. . Nice try there, but no cigar I assume now you agree the post was a distraction ..Thank you very much (in the accent of Latka Gravas on the sitcom taxi)
The graph supports the argument that the bush and Trump tax cuts have had negative effects, which is the point TDoss tried to make. There are counter arguments you could make about the benefits of those tax cuts, but the graph is not a distraction at all. If anything, the counterclaim that you and copycat are making about nominal revenue numbers is the distraction.
(11-17-2024, 12:31 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (11-17-2024, 10:48 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]No, my point was the graph was a distraction to the initial post of this string which was mainly unsubstantiated BS. . Nice try there, but no cigar I assume now you agree the post was a distraction ..Thank you very much (in the accent of Latka Gravas on the sitcom taxi)
The graph supports the argument that the bush and Trump tax cuts have had negative effects, which is the point TDoss tried to make. There are counter arguments you could make about the benefits of those tax cuts, but the graph is not a distraction at all. If anything, the counterclaim that you and copycat are making about nominal revenue numbers is the distraction.
Responding to people who refuses to accept reality, such as how inflation or deficits work, is a waste of time.
(11-17-2024, 12:50 PM)TDOSS Wrote: [ -> ] (11-17-2024, 12:31 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The graph supports the argument that the bush and Trump tax cuts have had negative effects, which is the point TDoss tried to make. There are counter arguments you could make about the benefits of those tax cuts, but the graph is not a distraction at all. If anything, the counterclaim that you and copycat are making about nominal revenue numbers is the distraction.
Responding to people who refuses to accept reality, such as how inflation or deficits work, is a waste of time.
And you're a waste of good oxygen..
![[Image: SyGju.jpg]](https://s11.gifyu.com/images/SyGju.jpg)
(11-17-2024, 12:27 PM)TDOSS Wrote: [ -> ] (11-16-2024, 10:24 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]Sounds like voodoo economics. 1. Did the amount of money stol…err collected from the US taxpayers go up or down? 2. Did the amount of money the government spend go up or down? Sometimes the answers are quite simple.
Yep.
https://www.propublica.org/article/national-debt-trump
(11-16-2024, 11:41 PM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]LOL. You are mistaken. Yes it did they even referenced it on CNBC a couple weeks ago. At the end of the Obama term we were running 1% GNP,we had a sluggish economy. We had one of the highest corporate tax rate in the world st 35%. Our multinational companies were keeping their capital overseas and expanding where the rates were lower. He cut rates to 21%, capital flowed into the country our GNP averaged 2.6% Voila ! More GNP more taxes.
Now reducing it further? To have an opinion I would need to do some thinking. Neither Obama of Biden have ever been in the business world.
The results were great for the people as well
Obama
GDP growth: 1.0%
Poverty rate: 14.00%
Real disposable income per capita: $42,914
Trump
GDP growth: 2.6% - increased 1.6%
Poverty rate: 11.90% - reduced 2.1%
Real disposable income per capita: $48,286
Biden
GDP growth: 2.6% - same
Poverty rate: 12.80% - increased
Real disposable income per capita: $46,682 - fell
![[Image: unnamed.png]](https://i.ibb.co/FbvHpzj/unnamed.png)
Manufacturing is not booming. It is measured by the government and called PMI It was around 59 in 2022, it sunk last month initially to 47.5, they revised it to 48.5. So that part of you post above is BS.
?
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-stat...turing-pmi
The inflation claim you made is also BS. see below
Inflation this year by month below
2024 3.1 3.2 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.0 2.9 2.5 2.4 2.6 = average of 2.9%
2023 4.1
2022 8.0
2021 4.7
?
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/in...ion-rates/
Sir, I have to conclude you are not here for a discussion. You are what we called a greifer when I was an internet cop. They are basically unhappy people that want others to be unhappy for company. Please provide proof of your claims in the future if you wish them to be considered
(11-17-2024, 12:27 PM)TDOSS Wrote: [ -> ] (11-16-2024, 10:24 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]Sounds like voodoo economics. 1. Did the amount of money stol…err collected from the US taxpayers go up or down? 2. Did the amount of money the government spend go up or down? Sometimes the answers are quite simple.
Yep.
https://www.propublica.org/article/national-debt-trump
(11-16-2024, 11:41 PM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]LOL. You are mistaken. Yes it did they even referenced it on CNBC a couple weeks ago. At the end of the Obama term we were running 1% GNP,we had a sluggish economy. We had one of the highest corporate tax rate in the world st 35%. Our multinational companies were keeping their capital overseas and expanding where the rates were lower. He cut rates to 21%, capital flowed into the country our GNP averaged 2.6% Voila ! More GNP more taxes.
Now reducing it further? To have an opinion I would need to do some thinking. Neither Obama of Biden have ever been in the business world.
The results were great for the people as well
Obama
GDP growth: 1.0%
Poverty rate: 14.00%
Real disposable income per capita: $42,914
Trump
GDP growth: 2.6% - increased 1.6%
Poverty rate: 11.90% - reduced 2.1%
Real disposable income per capita: $48,286
Biden
GDP growth: 2.6% - same
Poverty rate: 12.80% - increased
Real disposable income per capita: $46,682 - fell
I think it will be on both of them.
Right now, the total stock market capitalization to GDP ratio ("the Buffett indicator") is at around 2. That is wildly too high.
The Buffett Indicator: Market Cap to GDP - Updated Chart | Longtermtrends
The total debt, public and private, in the United States is over $95 trillion.
Total debt across all sectors U.S. 2022 | Statista
What happens when stocks are that overvalued, and there is that much debt?
Stock market crash, massive defaults, and depression.
On the other hand, it is amazing how long things can go before they crash. It might happen next year, or it might happen 10 years from now.
(11-17-2024, 01:03 PM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-17-2024, 12:27 PM)TDOSS Wrote: [ -> ]Yep.
https://www.propublica.org/article/national-debt-trump
Manufacturing is not booming. It is measured by the government and called PMI It was around 59 in 2022, it sunk last month initially to 47.5, they revised it to 48.5.
OK. I wish Mr Trump the best going forward. We shall see. Like they say: the proof is in the pudding.
But of course we all know anything he does at this point is going to be considered the best, by definition. Including apparently all these glory days:
![[Image: unnamed-1.png]](https://i.ibb.co/F3fR7Tt/unnamed-1.png)
![[Image: unnamed-2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/DwC77RD/unnamed-2.png)
Quote:Sir, I have to conclude you are not here for a discussion.
Yes. We need to have more serious discussions about serious issues, like cat eating Haitians and cancer causing wind turbines.
(11-17-2024, 01:06 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]I think it will be on both of them.
Right now, the total stock market capitalization to GDP ratio ("the Buffett indicator") is at around 2. That is wildly too high.
The Buffett Indicator: Market Cap to GDP - Updated Chart | Longtermtrends
The total debt, public and private, in the United States is over $95 trillion.
Total debt across all sectors U.S. 2022 | Statista
What happens when stocks are that overvalued, and there is that much debt?
Stock market crash, massive defaults, and depression.
I agree there are reasons for concerned. This is why we cannot continue the direction we are going. Disruptors are needed in government as the entrenched administrators have proved to not be capable of doing anything significant.
Stocks historically have been valued on average around 18 times earnings. Currently they are at 21-22 times earnings. Fortunately there are only a handful of stocks that are pulling that average higher. They are cyclical semi conductor type stocks due to the push for AI. On the other hand we did have a 4 year period where inflation was 20% and trillions of dollars were printed. 18*20% = 3.6. add that to the 18 and you have 21.6. A very simplistic approach.
Things should be ok as long as the default rate doesn't dramatically increase. It has moved a little in the last month but we need unemployment to stay low for this to work. The Fed has a duel mandate from congress to get to 2% (they are not there) and full employment. They foresaw the softening labor market despite the over inflated Jobs numbers reported by the current administration. They actually were the ones that forced the reduction of 880,000 in the report by saying they don't use the report. This caused the Fed to cut the rate by .50 instead of .25.
(11-16-2024, 02:55 PM)captivating Wrote: [ -> ] (11-16-2024, 11:36 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Deflation is very, very bad. You want the prices to stop going up and you want the people to get used to the new prices and have their wages go up.
You do not want prices to go back down. That's deflation. There were a lot of deflation shocks in the 1930s. That's why it took so long for the depression to resolve itself and go away.
But some prices should be coming down, especially those whose price increase was driven by supply shocks. That inflation was transitory but we aren't seeing prices revert. Bread is one such example.
Once again you fail to understand inflation. The economy needs some inflation to sustain growth. Negative inflation is the sign of a recession and even a depression. And the higher production of oil and gas only leads to more exports as we cannot use all that we produce. It would be better to actually curb production to what this country needs so we save the reserves we have can sustain us in the future. I know, present profits are more important than future needs. And lowering interest rates too quickly will cause the return of inflation. Please take a economics course.
(11-17-2024, 12:31 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (11-17-2024, 10:48 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]No, my point was the graph was a distraction to the initial post of this string which was mainly unsubstantiated BS. . Nice try there, but no cigar I assume now you agree the post was a distraction ..Thank you very much (in the accent of Latka Gravas on the sitcom taxi)
The graph supports the argument that the bush and Trump tax cuts have had negative effects, which is the point TDoss tried to make. There are counter arguments you could make about the benefits of those tax cuts, but the graph is not a distraction at all. If anything, the counterclaim that you and copycat are making about nominal revenue numbers is the distraction.
Dang dude. It is not that complicated. If you make more this year than you did last year and spend more than the difference between the two it is not sustainable. End of story.
(11-17-2024, 05:48 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (11-17-2024, 12:31 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The graph supports the argument that the bush and Trump tax cuts have had negative effects, which is the point TDoss tried to make. There are counter arguments you could make about the benefits of those tax cuts, but the graph is not a distraction at all. If anything, the counterclaim that you and copycat are making about nominal revenue numbers is the distraction.
Dang dude. It is not that complicated. If you make more this year than you did last year and spend more than the difference between the two it is not sustainable. End of story.
The second sentence of that post is totally true.
A child can understand it.
However the adults were trying to have a conversation that was a bit more complicated. We were trying blame specific policies for that debt. Specific choices about how much money to take in, how much money to spend, who made those choices, and when.
(11-17-2024, 05:57 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (11-17-2024, 05:48 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]Dang dude. It is not that complicated. If you make more this year than you did last year and spend more than the difference between the two it is not sustainable. End of story.
The second sentence of that post is totally true.
A child can understand it.
However the adults were trying to have a conversation that was a bit more complicated. We were trying blame specific policies for that debt. Specific choices about how much money to take in, how much money to spend, who made those choices, and when.
And those of us at the children’s table understand none of that is relevant. If your house is filling up with [BLEEP] the first move is to stop the flow of [BLEEP]. It is not to raise the roof to allow more [BLEEP].
(11-17-2024, 07:28 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (11-17-2024, 05:57 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The second sentence of that post is totally true.
A child can understand it.
However the adults were trying to have a conversation that was a bit more complicated. We were trying blame specific policies for that debt. Specific choices about how much money to take in, how much money to spend, who made those choices, and when.
And those of us at the children’s table understand none of that is relevant. If your house is filling up with [BLEEP] the first move is to stop the flow of [BLEEP]. It is not to raise the roof to allow more [BLEEP].
OK. Let's cut everything 20%. Including social security. Done?
(11-17-2024, 07:51 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (11-17-2024, 07:28 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]And those of us at the children’s table understand none of that is relevant. If your house is filling up with [BLEEP] the first move is to stop the flow of [BLEEP]. It is not to raise the roof to allow more [BLEEP].
OK. Let's cut everything 20%. Including social security. Done?
Bless your little heart...
Don't get sucked into Hypothetical Land..
You'll be fightin flying monkeys all day and night..
![[Image: SyGRo.jpg]](https://s11.gifyu.com/images/SyGRo.jpg)