(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.

---