US budget deficit running 11.8% higher this year (1 Viewer)

[MSgt]

How are you coming on finding those economic numbers supporting your claim that Trump inherited a booming economy? Seems apparently these numbers that disagree with you obviously must be wrong even though they came from the official data sites, bea.gov, bls.gov, and treasury.org. I can hardly wait for the data you are using to support your claim.

DP and Dollar change
2013 16974.9
2014 17527.7 552,8
2015 18224.8 697.1
2016 18715.0 490.2
2017 19519.4 804.4
2018 20580.2 1006.1 Notice the drop from 697 billion growth to 490 billion growth then the surge. Trump inherited the 18.7 economy that is now approaching 22 trillion


Then there is this which Trump inherited and the comparison today. Anyone that claims the GDP growth now is similar to what Obama had is the true hack and totally has no credibility

So...you have finally come to the understanding that Trump inherited the growth trend? I'll be damned. Somebody actually succeeded in beating some facts into your head. However, I see you are still clinging to your partisan BS. The reason GDP growth is what it is today is because the growth is exponential. That was the trend Trump inherited and all those sites that you dropped prove this. Your sites also show the temporary B12 shot that you were told about. When Trump began rolling back environmental protections in 2017, thereby giving oil companies and others license to exploit, it created a surge that acted as a temporary cash grab for the wealthy. You were told this years ago:

Gross Domestic Product | U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)

View attachment 67272388


Notice how the numbers scream upwards, but then in 2019 they settle right back to the 2015 trend that he inherited. That would be his B12 shot that I and others tried to help you understand two years ago. Obviously, you really should start allowing smarter people help you. Now look at that trend...


United States (USA) GDP - Gross Domestic Product 2019 | countryeconomy.com

2008 14,712,800M.$ -0.1%

2009 14,448,900M.$ -2.5%

2010 14,992,100M.$ 2.6%

2011 15,542,600M.$ 1.6%

2012 16,197,000M.$ 2.2%

2013 16,784,900M.$ 1.8%

2014 17,527,300M.$ 2.5%

2015 18,224,800M.$ 2.9%

2016 18,715,000M.$ 1.6%

2017 19,519,400M.$ 2.4%

2018 20,580,200M.$ 2.9%


Remember when Trump declared that Obama should be raked across the coals for not having a 3.0% since the Great Depression? Where's Trump's 3.0%? At least he managed to match the 2.9% of 2015 with a 2.9% in 2018. And do you know why our economy dove from that 2.9% in 2015? It was because the GOP took control of Congress in 2014 and their bull-headed opposition to all things that came from the White House and Democrats managed to affect the economy. But once the GOP stopped playing their games in 2016, the economy managed to get back on trend while Trump began taking credit. He began blending his anti-Obama political moves with the economic trend, which helped Conservatives validate their irrational nonsense against Obama, as if one individual makes/breaks the world's ever increasing globalizing economy. "Civics," the word you pretend to understand, was at play.

You see, when you site drop .orgs and .govs, and then go on to skew the facts given by those sites just to pervert the context of reality to fit your partisan needs, you become the one that lacks credibility.

African American unemployment 8.0% vs. 5.9% today?

With the positive trend of the economy came the trend of reducing unemployment for all. Narrowing it to only blacks, as if Trump is some sort of civil rights leader who fixated on the black condition, is just pathetic. You may as well declare that he has focused in on Asians, who have also seen greater employment. So have whites. But this does show that unemployment largely affects minorities before it will affect whites.

That explains the surge in support from African Americans for Trump

This was a lie, much like how you lie. Trump took the fact that some blacks have shifted to Republican Party and molded it into the lie of a surge.

According to the most recent set of national registration data compiled by the political data firm L2, more than 8 in 10 black Americans are Democrats; and more than 4 in 5 black Americans think the president is racist.

But because you cling to Trump's breath as holy, you fall for his BS about the economy, unemployment among blacks, and now a surge. Think for yourself and you might find yourself with less egg on your face.

 

[MSgt]

Well, too bad then. If dems ever get back in power which I doubt will happen anytime soon, they can reverse the tax cut for the wealthy.

Yes, too bad. **** the good ole' US of A for political team spirit.

 

[MSgt]

Again cherry picking and selective outrage. Why only 2016? Why not 2015 or 2014? Or Obamas whole term?

Because FOX News analysts routinely present it this way and people like "Conservative" likes to think that history began only when Trump entered the White House. Pretty easy to see:

2014 17,527,300M.$ 2.5%

2015 18,224,800M.$ 2.9%

2016 18,715,000M.$ 1.6%

2017 19,519,400M.$ 2.4%

2018 20,580,200M.$ 2.9%


So what happened in 2016 with Real GDP? How could it go from 2.9, to 1.6, right back up to 2.4? Looking closer reveals the disruption in the trend that coincides with the GOP's behavior since taking Congress in 2014. The immediate "fix" in 2017 revolves around the fact that the GOP stopped playing their opposition game that slowed national recovery and actually reversed it, while the global economy continued to recover. But from 2016-on is exactly how FOX News analysts present this history to their viewers, which is why all of them tend to argue from the same obtuse places. Trump becomes the hero in 2017. FOX feeds them BS, they parrot BS. Of course, FOX has stopped parading around the fact that Obama didn't see a 3.0% hasn't it? Two things:

- By pretending that 2.9% was horrible, they can't glorify Trump's 2.9%
- By retarding the American economy in 2016, the GOP probably removed the trend to a 3.0%

But the moment a 3.0% emerges, the GOP and FOX will again launch the fireworks over Trump's majesty. His ignorant loyalists will swoon.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

Again cherry picking and selective outrage. Why only 2016? Why not 2015 or 2014? Or Obamas whole term?

When Bush was president and his economy was good the poster Conservative praises Bush for the good economy, but doesn't give his Dem Congress any credit, UNTIL the economy crashed THEN he doesn't blame Bush, he blames the Dem Congress.. But when Obama was president he blames Obama for a slow recovery even though Obama had a REPUBLICAN Congress for 6 of his 8 year term.

So his formula is simple. When the economy is good, praise the Republicans, when it's bad blame the Dems, whether they are in Congress or the WH...

 

[Conservative]

PeteEU;1071227146]Because you will just ignore it as usual.

In order to ignore there has to be something presented to ignore, you haven't done that

We have been down this road before.

No idea what this means or where it comes from, and THAT IS YOUR PROBLEM! You hide behind this **** time and time again pushing unknown unverified numbers that tell people nothing because no one understands the way you set it up. I know where you are getting it from, so why dont you just link the original file instead of doing a piss poor copy and paste?

You made the claim that Trump inherited a booming economy. I am waiting for the data to support that claim. As for reading the data I Posted I now understand how incapable you are in doing any research and how personal feelings trump data

Try reading the actual results I posted again and pay attention to the declining GDP dollar growth oin 2016 and the 1.6% GDP percentage growth. This information came from BEA.gov which is official Treasury data. Want to try again?

But it is similar..it is YOU that ignore facts.

What facts? 4.7% unemployment rate that included over 5.7 million part time for economic reason jobs? the fact that in 9 years only 6 million jobs were created in the U.S. economy and 6.6 million have been created in the last three?

Again cherry picking and selective outrage. Why only 2016? Why not 2015 or 2014? Or Obamas whole term?

Would be happy to compare the entire term, Treasury at bea.gov shows GDP growth of 4.2 trillion dollars during the 8 years of Obama and that 4.2 trillion included the 842 billion Obama stimulus which was added to gov't spending which is one of the components of GDP. In three years under Trump that GDP growth is 3 trillion dollars.

Yes and more cherry picking. Unemployment is a lagging indicator and depending on who you talk too, this lag is 6 months to a year. So you should be comparing July 2017 to today. And even worse on the cherry picking bull****... why dont you compare when Obama took office and the peak unemployment? oh yea because that would totally ruin your narrative.. going from 10% unemployment to 4.7 to 4.3 is a hell of a lot better than going from 4.7/4.3 to 3.5.. or are you one of the people who only cheer on the last guy in a 4x4 relay race?

That is the problem the entire Obama term had lagging indicators, lagging GDP growth, lagging job creation, lagging consumer confidence, 4 million fewer votes in 2012 than 2008 the only President to ever get fewer votes in his re-election

Regarding unemployment tell me how part time for economic reasons fit into your equation of a booming economy? Seems context doesn't matter as most of those jobs Obama created were part time. There are 1.4 million fewer today in your 3.5% unemployment rate and the African American unemployment rate is better than 2% lower than our First African American President generated

You continue to cherry pick your numbers over and over again in a vain attempt to prove Trumps record is better than the black guy before him. You fail every time.

Aw yes, play the race card and call the President a "racist" who has generated record and historic low African American unemployment

And here is a help on how to do it right.

Context doesn't matter to people like you who prop up failure and still have no understanding of what a booming economy is. Employment went from 146 million with a Democratic Congress in 2008 and 4.8 million part time for economic reason employment to 152 million and 5.7 million Part time for economic reason employment in January 2017. The U-6 was 9.2% in 2008 and 9.3% when he left office, It is 6.7% today vs. that 9.3% when Obama left office.

Don't you get tired of having the left make a fool out of you?

 

[Conservative]

Because FOX News analysts routinely present it this way and people like "Conservative" likes to think that history began only when Trump entered the White House. Pretty easy to see:

2014 17,527,300M.$ 2.5%

2015 18,224,800M.$ 2.9%

2016 18,715,000M.$ 1.6%

2017 19,519,400M.$ 2.4%

2018 20,580,200M.$ 2.9%


So what happened in 2016 with Real GDP? How could it go from 2.9, to 1.6, right back up to 2.4? Looking closer reveals the disruption in the trend that coincides with the GOP's behavior since taking Congress in 2014. The immediate "fix" in 2017 revolves around the fact that the GOP stopped playing their opposition game that slowed national recovery and actually reversed it, while the global economy continued to recover. But from 2016-on is exactly how FOX News analysts present this history to their viewers, which is why all of them tend to argue from the same obtuse places. Trump becomes the hero in 2017. FOX feeds them BS, they parrot BS. Of course, FOX has stopped parading around the fact that Obama didn't see a 3.0% hasn't it? Two things:

- By pretending that 2.9% was horrible, they can't glorify Trump's 2.9%
- By retarding the American economy in 2016, the GOP probably removed the trend to a 3.0%

But the moment a 3.0% emerges, the GOP and FOX will again launch the fireworks over Trump's majesty. His ignorant loyalists will swoon.

Very easy to see, percentage change only matters to you as does trends, real dollars don't. Obama had declining dollar growth and a slowing economy that Trump inherited, not only did the GDP dollar growth almost double his first year and went over a trillion dollar growth in 2018 and will again in 2019. When did Obama have a trillion dollar GDP growth?

Pretending that Obama economy was booming doesn't do much for your credibility

 

[ElChupacabra]

Trump's overall rating is influenced by the 24/7 media and radical bashing but is irrelevant at this point. No Democrat to focus on but you seem to not understand what drives people. Can you explain why NO PRESIDENT in history has lost re-election with an over 50% approval rating on the economy? What was Bush's approval rating in 2004 on the economy?

I don't pretend to know what drives everyone because I understand people well enough to know there are a wide variety of reasons; we are not a hive mind. The stats do support a incumbent president riding a strong economy, the question is whether Trump's own persona and methods have been enough to sabotage any efforts he's made. I think he's the first recent litmus test of what the American public finds as acceptable presidential behavior. We'll find out in November.

You seem to also not grasp the problem with spending in the name of compassion. Your parents worked hard as did mine to give me a better life. You don't create a better life by making people dependent on liberalism and bureaucrats in D.C. Your problem is you believe spending in the name of compassion is all that matters, but what about results? Why don't results matter? Destroying incentive is what the left does and I am sure that even though your parents worked hard at giving you a good life they also used some tough love at times.

The problem is you assume everyone is going to become "dependent on liberalism". Our parents could just have easily said "we worked, hard for ours suck it up and leave us alone kid", but clearly they didn't. The motivation was to improve the odds of the next generation; I just view this on more than just the personal level. I'm certainly not alone since almost all of the industrialized world feels the same and does what it can to help its citizenry in this regard. Is it perfect anywhere? Of course not, but it works for those respective societies. There was sure plenty of tough love, but the intention was always about improving the odds for the next generation (as I now do for mine). We can create the opportunities, but it's up to the individual to make the most of them (personal responsibility).

I don't buy this whole "destroys incentive" argument because it's been disproven in places where you have nationalized healthcare and access to college education. By your logic, most of Europe would be filled with unproductive slackers, when that's clearly not the case.

Do you not understand that charitable giving results from people keeping more of what they earn? Do you believe charities in your local community are better to solve social problems than a national program from D.C.?

The effectiveness of local charities isn't a way to manage these types of programs across the country. If you look at where most of the wealth is generated, it leaves gaps across a large part of the country.

 

[Michael Cole]

Very easy to see, percentage change only matters to you as does trends, real dollars don't. Obama had declining dollar growth and a slowing economy that Trump inherited, not only did the GDP dollar growth almost double his first year and went over a trillion dollar growth in 2018 and will again in 2019. When did Obama have a trillion dollar GDP growth?

Pretending that Obama economy was booming doesn't do much for your credibility

You do realize percentages and trends are in real dollars right?

(I'm ****ing hopeless)

 

[Conservative]

I don't pretend to know what drives everyone because I understand people well enough to know there are a wide variety of reasons; we are not a hive mind. The stats do support a incumbent president riding a strong economy, the question is whether Trump's own persona and methods have been enough to sabotage any efforts he's made. I think he's the first recent litmus test of what the American public finds as acceptable presidential behavior. We'll find out in November.



The problem is you assume everyone is going to become "dependent on liberalism". Our parents could just have easily said "we worked, hard for ours suck it up and leave us alone kid", but clearly they didn't. The motivation was to improve the odds of the next generation; I just view this on more than just the personal level. I'm certainly not alone since almost all of the industrialized world feels the same and does what it can to help its citizenry in this regard. Is it perfect anywhere? Of course not, but it works for those respective societies. There was sure plenty of tough love, but the intention was always about improving the odds for the next generation (as I now do for mine). We can create the opportunities, but it's up to the individual to make the most of them (personal responsibility).

I don't buy this whole "destroys incentive" argument because it's been disproven in places where you have nationalized healthcare and access to college education. By your logic, most of Europe would be filled with unproductive slackers, when that's clearly not the case.



The effectiveness of local charities isn't a way to manage these types of programs across the country. If you look at where most of the wealth is generated, it leaves gaps across a large part of the country.

The problem with you and the left wing is when the results tank it is too late to say you are sorry and the economy will tank and always does when the left social engineers at the national level and raises taxes

You have been brainwashed by the left into believing that federal bureaucrats can solve social problems in your community, the results tell a different story

If you think nationalized healthcare is so great why don't you move to one of those countries and see what you really pay for UHC?. Every hear the adage that

the grass is always greener on the other side until you get there?

 

[Conservative]

You do realize percentages and trends are in real dollars right?

(I'm ****ing hopeless)

Do you realize that no one spends percentages and expenses today and revenue today are today's dollars?

 

[Mithros]

The problem with you and the left wing is when the results tank it is too late to say you are sorry and the economy will tank and always does when the left social engineers at the national level and raises taxes

You have been brainwashed by the left into believing that federal bureaucrats can solve social problems in your community, the results tell a different story

If you think nationalized healthcare is so great why don't you move to one of those countries and see what you really pay for UHC?. Every hear the adage that

We need to fight these left wing radicals! Let's cut benefits for medicare recipients by half. Every medicare recipient should have to pay an extra $7,000 in premiums. I'm sure someone as fiscally responsible and astute as you would no doubt agree.

Medicare costs us more than $750,200,000,000 per year with only 44 million recipients. The *working* taxpayer struggling to make ends meet is forking out $17,000 for each and every senior. Meanwhile those seniors enjoying such a posh government handout never contributed more than 3% of their salary to medicare including the employer portion. And before 1991 it was far less. I've seen estimates that the entire amount current retires payed in to Medicare, invested, only pays for about 2 years of medicare coverage.

So instead of pushing the costs onto future generations, we should make the people who are currently milking the system pay. Especially when many of those people are selfishly demanding that we cut benefits for everyone else. After all, their parents have sacrificed and their children will sacrifice greatly for them.

Oh wait.. never mind, we have to cut everyone else's benefits. After all, you're entitled. You already have your free government health care that the rest of us are forced to pay for when we can't even afford our own.

 

[Conservative]

We need to fight these left wing radicals! Let's cut benefits for medicare recipients by half. Every medicare recipient should have to pay an extra $7,000 in premiums. I'm sure someone as fiscally responsible and astute as you would no doubt agree.

Medicare costs us more than $750,200,000,000 per year with only 44 million recipients. The *working* taxpayer struggling to make ends meet is forking out $17,000 for each and every senior. Meanwhile those seniors enjoying such a posh government handout never contributed more than 3% of their salary to medicare including the employer portion. And before 1991 it was far less. I've seen estimates that the entire amount current retires payed in to Medicare, invested, only pays for about 2 years of medicare coverage.

So instead of pushing the costs onto future generations, we should make the people who are currently milking the system pay. Especially when many of those people are selfishly demanding that we cut benefits for everyone else. After all, their parents have sacrificed and their children will sacrifice greatly for them.

Oh wait.. never mind, we have to cut everyone else's benefits. After all, you're entitled. You already have your free government health care that the rest of us are forced to pay for when we can't even afford our own.

Wonder if you have any clue how Medicare is funded? Do you know where the money the bureaucrats borrowed from SS went? Any idea how much was borrowed? Was any of that those "selfish people milking the system paid?"

 

[Michael Cole]

Do you realize that no one spends percentages and expenses today and revenue today are today's dollars?

English. Please.

 

[Mithros]

Wonder if you have any clue how Medicare is funded? Do you know where the money the bureaucrats borrowed from SS went? Any idea how much was borrowed? Was any of that those "selfish people milking the system paid?"

Yeah.. I pay quite a lot for you to have it. (ps you're welcome)

SS is not Medicare. You don't have to pay SS after you make about 135k. You always have to pay medicare. In fact you now have to pay extra Medicare after you make more than 200k.

And no bureaucrat borrowed a dime from SS or Medicare. That's not how the government works. I'm sure that was the case when you took your high school civics class. Since government spending has been a pretty consistent percentage of GDP over the past few decades it's pretty easy to say that in effect, most of that borrowed money was given away to the rich and corporations in the form of tax cuts and voodoo economics... at the insistence of but by no means to the benefit of people like yourself.

 

[Conservative]

Yeah.. I pay quite a lot for you to have it. (ps you're welcome)

SS is not Medicare. You don't have to pay SS after you make about 135k. You always have to pay medicare. In fact you now have to pay extra Medicare after you make more than 200k.

And no bureaucrat borrowed a dime from SS or Medicare. That's not how the government works. I'm sure that was the case when you took your high school civics class. Since government spending has been a pretty consistent percentage of GDP over the past few decades it's pretty easy to say that in effect, most of that borrowed money was given away to the rich and corporations in the form of tax cuts and voodoo economics... at the insistence of but by no means to the benefit of people like yourself.

LOL, yes and for 35 years obviously I have put in a lot less than you have, right? Medicare came out of SS and both are funded by FICA. where did you get your education? I continue to pay Medicare premiums through a reduction in my SS payments

 

[ElChupacabra]

The problem with you and the left wing is when the results tank it is too late to say you are sorry and the economy will tank and always does when the left social engineers at the national level and raises taxes

So is the ebb and flow though, isn't it? Our history teaches us that we keep teetering back and forth between boom and bust; in general terms.

You have been brainwashed by the left into believing that federal bureaucrats can solve social problems in your community, the results tell a different story

No brainwashing required actually; just observation by actual involvement in trying to solve local social problems and seeing the many other areas that don't have access to the same level of help. Where I live, we have more than a fair share of people willing to volunteer for all sorts of community programs; mainly because there's a good percentage of upper middle class people with the flexibility to do so (e.g. single earner households with a spouse who has time to spare). When I used to volunteer in my former neighborhood, that help was much harder to come by because most people were either working two jobs and didn't have the time to spare. Some folks love to complain about Federal bureaucrats, but I see them the same way as the private sector does: a tool to achieve positive outcomes. All of the lobbying done by the private sector should be a good indicator at how effective the "bureaucracy" can be; it's a matter of how you incentivize it to work in your favor. You view government as something to be concerned about, while I see it as a tool to be used to help the people it's supposed to represent.

If you think nationalized healthcare is so great why don't you move to one of those countries and see what you really pay for UHC?. Every hear the adage that

I'm well aware of what's paid there since I have family and friends who live in the UK and the continent. While they have certain complaints about some aspects of it, not once have I heard anyone say that they would give it up to have their healthcare be dependent on employer based healthcare. I have plans of moving to Europe (and am already working toward that), but it isn't out of need for healthcare. The adage you provided is only valid if you're naive to think that systems don't come with some trade off; I am under no such delusion. What I do share with Europeans, is the idea that I don't want my fellow citizens to go without healthcare or other essentials because "I got mine!". Sure, the taxes are high, but what you get for that is eliminating the threat of going without healthcare, and access to education. The latter is really important in this day and age, where continued education is a requirement for many fields.

 

[Conservative]

So is the ebb and flow though, isn't it? Our history teaches us that we keep teetering back and forth between boom and bust; in general terms.



No brainwashing required actually; just observation by actual involvement in trying to solve local social problems and seeing the many other areas that don't have access to the same level of help. Where I live, we have more than a fair share of people willing to volunteer for all sorts of community programs; mainly because there's a good percentage of upper middle class people with the flexibility to do so (e.g. single earner households with a spouse who has time to spare). When I used to volunteer in my former neighborhood, that help was much harder to come by because most people were either working two jobs and didn't have the time to spare. Some folks love to complain about Federal bureaucrats, but I see them the same way as the private sector does: a tool to achieve positive outcomes. All of the lobbying done by the private sector should be a good indicator at how effective the "bureaucracy" can be; it's a matter of how you incentivize it to work in your favor. You view government as something to be concerned about, while I see it as a tool to be used to help the people it's supposed to represent.



I'm well aware of what's paid there since I have family and friends who live in the UK and the continent. While they have certain complaints about some aspects of it, not once have I heard anyone say that they would give it up to have their healthcare be dependent on employer based healthcare. I have plans of moving to Europe (and am already working toward that), but it isn't out of need for healthcare. The adage you provided is only valid if you're naive to think that systems don't come with some trade off; I am under no such delusion. What I do share with Europeans, is the idea that I don't want my fellow citizens to go without healthcare or other essentials because "I got mine!". Sure, the taxes are high, but what you get for that is eliminating the threat of going without healthcare, and access to education. The latter is really important in this day and age, where continued education is a requirement for many fields.

There is nothing I say that is going to change your mind or you say that is going to change mine. I believe in the free market and personal responsibility and you aren't responsible for mine so back to the thread topic

the U.S. budget deficit growth is caused by interest expense almost doubling and becoming the fourth largest budget item and entitlement spending mandatory increases created by Congress. Trump's discretionary budget is up 100 billion dollars over Obama's and that discretionary budget continues to be funded by specific taxes that have generated 2.036 trillion in revenue. Not sure even liberal math would claim that 2.036 trillion in revenue to fund 1.47 trillion in discretionary funding would cause a deficit but could be wrong as partisan liberals don't seem to understand even basic math

 

[Mithros]

LOL, yes and for 35 years obviously I have put in a lot less than you have, right? Medicare came out of SS and both are funded by FICA. where did you get your education? I continue to pay Medicare premiums through a reduction in my SS payments

Medicare and SS are different taxes. That's why you have two separate boxes on your W2 for tax withholding (box4) for SS and (box6) for Medicare and why assuming you make enough (box3) and (box5) are different.

You pay through a reduction in the benefits that we're paying to you???? LOL. Your entitlement mentality is strong. If you've been retired more than 5 or so years then I'm not sure I'd be going around claiming to have paid more than current workers. This is especially true since the caps to SS and Medicare have grown much faster than inflation. Furthermore tax rates themselves used to be much lower.

It's funny, you act like 35 years is a big deal... like you paid your dues. I"m not going to speak for everyone, but I'd be surprised if most people weren't looking at working 45-55+ years. I'm doing pretty well, but the though of retiring after only 35 years is ridiculous.

(and when you talk of personal responsibility I'm assuming that you mean that we are all personally responsible for paying for you)

 

[Conservative]

Medicare and SS are different taxes. That's why you have two separate boxes on your W2 for tax withholding (box4) for SS and (box6) for Medicare and why assuming you make enough (box3) and (box5) are different.

You pay through a reduction in the benefits that we're paying to you???? LOL. Your entitlement mentality is strong. If you've been retired more than 5 or so years then I'm not sure I'd be going around claiming to have paid more than current workers. This is especially true since the caps to SS and Medicare have grown much faster than inflation. Furthermore tax rates themselves used to be much lower.

It's funny, you act like 35 years is a big deal... like you paid your dues. I"m not going to speak for everyone, but I'd be surprised if most people weren't looking at working 45-55+ years. I'm doing pretty well, but the though of retiring after only 35 years is ridiculous.

(and when you talk of personal responsibility I'm assuming that you mean that we are all personally responsible for paying for you)

Are you capable of admitting when wrong? Let's see

Social Security Administration

Medicare is funded by the Social Security Administration. Which means it's funded by taxpayers: We all pay 1.45% of our earnings into FICA - Federal Insurance Contributions Act, if you're into deciphering acronyms - which go toward Medicare. Employers pay another 1.45%, bringing the total to 2.9%.

Who pays for Medicare? - Ultimate Guide to Retirement

What really would be funny if not so sad is how poorly informed you are on this subject

 

[ElChupacabra]

There is nothing I say that is going to change your mind or you say that is going to change mine. I believe in the free market and personal responsibility and you aren't responsible for mine so back to the thread topic

So do I, the difference being that I'm aware that free market players use government as a tool to make it easier for themselves to conduct business and reap benefits for themselves, and as a citizen, I feel the public can use government to help itself and the country as well.

 

[jpn]

Kansas: Republicans slashed taxes, promising that the business boom would more than compensate. It didn't. After the tax cut, revenues plummeted and the deficits soared.

Kansas Provides Compelling Evidence of Failure of "Supply-Side" Tax Cuts

Then they raised taxes. Problems solved.
The comeback state of 2019: Kansas economy rebounds from tax-cutting disaster

Oklahoma: Conservatives slashed taxes for the oil/gas industry, which is the main revenue producing industry in the state.

Oklahoma taxpayers are fed up.
Riding high on the oil boom of the late 2000s, the state followed the Kansas model and slashed taxes. But the promised prosperity never came. In many cases, it was just the opposite.
Around 20 percent of Oklahoma's schools now hold classes just four days a week. Last year, Highway Patrol officers were given a mileage limit because the state couldn't afford to put gas in their tanks. Medicaid provider rates have been cut to the point that rural nursing homes and hospitals are closing, and the prisons are so full that the director of corrections says they're on the brink of a crisis.​

Then they raised taxes. Problems solved.
Early projections show $612M surplus for Oklahoma in 2019 - News - Times Record - Fort Smith, AR

But don't try telling Republicans this. They know better than we do: "Those liberals. They just don't understand economics."

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

Kansas: Republicans slashed taxes, promising that the business boom would more than compensate. It didn't. After the tax cut, revenues plummeted and the deficits soared.

Kansas Provides Compelling Evidence of Failure of "Supply-Side" Tax Cuts

Then they raised taxes. Problems solved.
The comeback state of 2019: Kansas economy rebounds from tax-cutting disaster

Oklahoma: Conservatives slashed taxes for the oil/gas industry, which is the main revenue producing industry in the state.

Oklahoma taxpayers are fed up.
Riding high on the oil boom of the late 2000s, the state followed the Kansas model and slashed taxes. But the promised prosperity never came. In many cases, it was just the opposite.
Around 20 percent of Oklahoma's schools now hold classes just four days a week. Last year, Highway Patrol officers were given a mileage limit because the state couldn't afford to put gas in their tanks. Medicaid provider rates have been cut to the point that rural nursing homes and hospitals are closing, and the prisons are so full that the director of corrections says they're on the brink of a crisis.​

Then they raised taxes. Problems solved.
Early projections show $612M surplus for Oklahoma in 2019 - News - Times Record - Fort Smith, AR

But don't try telling Republicans this. They know better than we do: "Those liberals. They just don't understand economics."

Yep.. And add Louisiana to that list too.. Jindal cuts taxes, etc. and all that happened was LA/ ran up a $1 bil deficit. The economy and deficit got so bad Jindal's fellow Republicans in the state were openly saying they couldn't wait for him to leave office so they could start to fix the mess he made.

 

[bluesmoke]

So tell me what Obama policies brought us out of recession in June 2009. The rest of your post is way too difficult to respond to as you have no understanding of how to use the quote function properly. It is interesting how trends matter to you more than actual dollars, why is that?

No. You’ve not yet provided the information you said you would, so why should I?

I put what you said in quotes and italics and they are YOUR OWN WORDS, which should be thus recognizable to you. I don’t use the quote function for my own purpose which I find most useful to me and you need not be concerned with.

Trends reflect actual dollars. Go ahead and explain what you wish to say about how much better Trump is using whatever figures you wish. I’ll refute whatever you say in a rational and meaningful way.

You continue to do your best to avoid giving evidence of fact to support your misleading claims.

 

[Rogue Valley]

You continue to do your best to avoid giving evidence of fact to support your misleading claims.

It is his hallmark. Folks that have been here a while know how it always goes with Conservative.

Plenty of claims and bluster. Very few neutral citations and credible evidence.

 

[Conservative]

No. You’ve not yet provided the information you said you would, so why should I?

I put what you said in quotes and italics and they are YOUR OWN WORDS, which should be thus recognizable to you. I don’t use the quote function for my own purpose which I find most useful to me and you need not be concerned with.

Trends reflect actual dollars. Go ahead and explain what you wish to say about how much better Trump is using whatever figures you wish. I’ll refute whatever you say in a rational and meaningful way.

You continue to do your best to avoid giving evidence of fact to support your misleading claims.

I have provided nothing BUT information that apparently you are incapable of verifying or understanding. We came out of recession in June 2009 before Obama's stimulus was even spent. you really have no idea how to use the quote function and apparently no idea how to do research

Trends make pretty graphs especially when up so why don't you put those trends is dollars like I have rather than a chart showing upward movement. your charts do show what I am posting and show that in 2016 GDP dollar growth dropped over 200 billion dollars to 490 billion dollars and although GDP grew it grew at a slower pace thus indicating the slowdown in the economy, not the booming economy the left wants to claim happened. then look at the 2016 dollar growth vs. 2017, 2018 and soon 2019 with both 2018-2019 over a trillion dollar GDP growth. Obama's entire term saw 4.2 trillion in GDP dollar growth, Trump will have generated 3 trillion in three years without the benefit of a stimulus that was part of Obama's 4.2 trillion growth. Take the 842 billion off the 4.2 trillion and Trump has almost equaled Obama's 8 year performance in three

DP and Dollar change
2013 16974.9
2014 17527.7 552,8
2015 18224.8 697.1
2016 18715.0 490.2
2017 19519.4 804.4
2018 20580.2 1006.1 Notice the drop from 697 billion growth to 490 billion growth then the surge. Trump inherited the 18.7 economy that is now approaching 22 trillion