@AverageJoe1 saidThe whole point keeps whooshing over your head. They are $2 trillion short, Trump spent a lot more money than he took in. The said members of society are not paying the taxes, in part because Trump wanted to give his billionaire buddies a raise and because he wanted to war with a middle eastern country for no reason. Some of those billionaires don't even pay taxes. So, who pays that bill now? Poor people?
? Somebody's got to pay. Yes, members of a society do so in the form of taxes. But AJoe queries which of the members pay how much. Some don't pay ANY!,,,,while those 'some' expect the producers, who do not ride around on the beach, to pay more, so that the 'some' can have a free ride on that beach.
I think my posts are too simple.
@wildgrass saidOoooohh, Wgrass, you gullible creature. Allow me….
The whole point keeps whooshing over your head. They are $2 trillion short, Trump spent a lot more money than he took in. The said members of society are not paying the taxes, in part because Trump wanted to give his billionaire buddies a raise and because he wanted to war with a middle eastern country for no reason. Some of those billionaires don't even pay taxes. So, who pays that bill now? Poor people?
Deficits didn’t suddenly begin with Trump. (Cue,,AJoe is correct) The U.S. has run deficits under Republicans and Democrats for decades, including Obama, Bush, Biden, and Reagan. If deficits are suddenly treated as moral outrage only when Trump is involved, people notice the inconsistency. And you, the gullible creature.
And the “tax cuts for billionaires” line 🤔ignores that lower corporate and capital taxes were argued to encourage investment, business expansion, and higher wages — not just enrich rich people. (Losers will never grasp this!!!! )))))) Are you one?!?) You can disagree with the policy, but it wasn’t invented as cartoon villainy.
Also, Congress controls spending too. The deficit is driven by massive entitlement spending, interest on the debt, military costs, and bipartisan spending packages — not just one president writing checks to friends.
GET IT MAN!!! Be the first on your block!
I can’t believe how I have fallen into your little group of malcontents.
Write back!!!!!
@AverageJoe1 saidYou conveniently forgot Clinton. This is not a both parties problem.
Ooooohh, Wgrass, you gullible creature. Allow me….
Deficits didn’t suddenly begin with Trump. (Cue,,AJoe is correct) The U.S. has run deficits under Republicans and Democrats for decades, including Obama, Bush, Biden, and Reagan. If deficits are suddenly treated as moral outrage only when Trump is involved, people notice the inconsistency. And you, the gullible creatur ...[text shortened]... I can’t believe how I have fallen into your little group of malcontents.
Write back!!!!!
Deficits went up under Reagan
Deficits went up under bush 1.
Deficits went down under Clinton.
Deficits went back up under bush 2.
Deficits went down under Obama.
Deficits went up under trump 1.
Deficits went down under Biden.
Aand now they're back up.
Republicans increase deficits, Democrats reduce deficits. Every single time. It might be the most consistent political trend over the last 40 years.
1 edit
@wildgrass saidOh My Gaaa... King of oversimplifying!!!!!. Clinton, during his downtime, literally and figuratively speaking!!😀 (horemonger) , benefited from the dot-com boom, the post–Cold War peace dividend, and a Republican Congress that restrained spending after 1994. Ask your momma.
You conveniently forgot Clinton. This is not a both parties problem.
Deficits went up under Reagan
Deficits went up under bush 1.
Deficits went down under Clinton.
Deficits went back up under bush 2.
Deficits went down under Obama.
Deficits went up under trump 1.
Deficits went down under Biden.
Aand now they're back up.
Republicans increase deficits, Democrats ...[text shortened]... deficits. Every single time. It might be the most consistent political trend over the last 40 years.
Obama’s deficits also exploded early on and only fell after the economy recovered from the financial crisis. Trump then got hit with COVID, which blew spending through the roof worldwide.
And if Democrats are supposedly the party of fiscal restraint, why did the national debt still rise massively under Obama and Biden in absolute dollars? Absolute dollars. You do not even know what absolute dollars are. Do you think Kamala your president knows what absolute dollars are ?!?!?!!
Biden also signed trillions in new spending while inflation surged. Please remind us of that.. Suzanne read this stuff, so I want to get it right!
Little feller,
The reality is both parties spend too much. Republicans tend to cut taxes and increase defense spending; Democrats tend to expand domestic programs and entitlements. Pretending one side is fiscally pure and the other uniquely reckless just ignores history, it makes you look stupid and unprepared in such discussions. Pretend there is a debate judge, staring you down.
“It is all Trump’s fault!!!!!”
The posts of you fellas are all just so queer and uninformed. I am here purely for the entertainment.
Thank you for that.
1 edit
@AverageJoe1 saidYou overcomplicate. Trump's deficit number in 2019 was triple what the number was in 2015, all before COVID.
Oh My Gas. King of oversimplifying!!!!!. Clinton, during his downtime, literally and figuratively speaking!!😀 (horemonger) , benefited from the dot-com boom, the post–Cold War peace dividend, and a Republican Congress that restrained spending after 1994. Ask your momma.
Obama’s deficits also exploded early on and only fell after the economy recovered from the finan ...[text shortened]... s are all just so queer and uninformed. I am here purely for the entertainment.
Thank you for that.
The rest of your argument boils down to Democrats being better at stewarding economies.
Really?!?!! Not really. Your argument cherry-picks years , and ignores context. A lib fault.
Obama inherited a financial collapse, so deficits “exploded “ early, then naturally shrank during recovery. Trump inherited a mature economy. and he cut taxes while increasing spending, so deficits rose. Biden inherited a post-COVID turnaround , a bounce back, with huge stimulus already flowing, so some deficit reduction happened automatically as emergency spending expired. A natural occurrence in such times. Econ 102.
That still doesn’t prove Democrats are “better stewards.” If they were, blue states wouldn’t be losing population, businesses, and tax base to lower-tax Republican states. You leave yhsg out, little feller, Uhhhhhh us Trump causing the populist? His fault!!!! Mamdani has the answer Tell us what your latest (muxlim ) dem brings to your party.
The simple answer is that both parties run deficits — they just spend money on different priorities,
Speaking of Mamdani , y’all are gonna come get my savings are you?
PS Why are blue states losing population? Damn Trump.!!!! exactly who was the loser here?
Love certain words, like loser, risk, choice, so many words that I love. Also independence, self-reliance, responsibility, aversion to leaning on others,….. have you ever talked words or phrases like that??
@AverageJoe1 saidObama inherited a terrible economy that bush destroyed, and he inherited a trillion dollar deficit. He didn't explode it, he decreased it to $400 billion.
Really?!?!! Not really. Your argument cherry-picks years , and ignores context. A lib fault.
Obama inherited a financial collapse, so deficits “exploded “ early, then naturally shrank during recovery. Trump inherited a mature economy. and he cut taxes while increasing spending, so deficits rose. Biden inherited a post-COVID turnaround , a bounce back, with huge sti ...[text shortened]... responsibility, aversion to leaning on others,….. have you ever talked words or phrases like that??
You cherry pick. I listed all presidents for the last 45 years and what they did to deficits. Every single Republican increased deficit spending, every single Democrat decreased deficit spending. There is nothing cherry picked.
@AverageJoe1 saidYes, it is cartoon villainy. The "argument" is in bad faith. The idea that tax cuts will raise wages is not in any way reflected in reality.
And the “tax cuts for billionaires” line 🤔ignores that lower corporate and capital taxes were argued to encourage investment, business expansion, and higher wages — not just enrich rich people. (Losers will never grasp this!!!! )))))) Are you one?!?) You can disagree with the policy, but it wasn’t invented as cartoon villainy.
It really is just to make the rich richer and these rich people laugh at us for falling for it every time.
@wildgrass saidI can easily answer that, but might I wish that people like and marauder are idealists? Like, we can agree that I am more realistic, as you are more idealist? Thanks.
Obama inherited a terrible economy that bush destroyed, and he inherited a trillion dollar deficit. He didn't explode it, he decreased it to $400 billion.
You cherry pick. I listed all presidents for the last 45 years and what they did to deficits. Every single Republican increased deficit spending, every single Democrat decreased deficit spending. There is nothing cherry picked.
You see, You’re treating ‘raw deficit’direction like it proves ideology, while ignoring what actually drives deficits: recessions, wars, tax revenue cycles, Congress, and emergency spending. Not your faerie idealism, give us all a break
Obama absolutely ran trillion-dollar deficits for years — over $1T annually from 2009–2012. Yes, they later declined as the economy recovered, but that’s different from saying Democrats are uniquely fiscal disciplines..
And Clinton had the Internet boom, common knowledge. And he had a Republican Congress pushing spending restraint after 1993 or so,. RESTRAINT…!
If your theory were simply “Democrats manage money better,” then debt as a percentage of GDP , follow here, wouldn’t have continued climbing under BOTH parties over the long time, the long run. But it did. Geez. You boys are the cherry pickers of all time.
In support of this, my discussion, how about googling this because it is all over Google….”Republicans tend to favor lower taxes and growth incentives.Democrats tend to favor higher spending. “ Why don’t you start your response by denying that, what a laugh!!!!
While I have you, you’re not gonna come after my money are you, I just sold something and made a lot of money. Should I give that to someone? you,?
Give it up!
@AThousandYoung saidMany many many many many many many many many economists will disagree with you.
Yes, it is cartoon villainy. The "argument" is in bad faith. The idea that tax cuts will raise wages is not in any way reflected in reality.
It really is just to make the rich richer and these rich people laugh at us for falling for it every time.
@AThousandYoung saidHey, don’t miss my joust here with Wildgrass. Absolutely unbelievable.
Yes, it is cartoon villainy. The "argument" is in bad faith. The idea that tax cuts will raise wages is not in any way reflected in reality.
It really is just to make the rich richer and these rich people laugh at us for falling for it every time.
A sea of dependents , self defined economists ,armchair quarterbacks, economy-professor-wannabes,., and anything else I can think of..
That, like you, Research nothing , no experience, not online something else,and they repeat what people have been telling them that their local dart game!!!!!!
@AverageJoe1 saidThat's because it is in their economic interests to disagree, not because they have any evidence supporting their belief.
Many many many many many many many many many economists will disagree with you.
@AverageJoe1 saidOf course. No research at all.
Hey, don’t miss my joust here with Wildgrass. Absolutely unbelievable.
A sea of dependents , self defined economists ,armchair quarterbacks, economy-professor-wannabes,., and anything else I can think of..
That, like you, Research nothing , no experience, not online something else,and they repeat what people have been telling them that their local dart game!!!!!!
And don't you hate all those links I put up? What's up with those?
For you AI lovers, this is what Google AI says:
Prompt: "tax cuts wages correlation"
The Intended Mechanism: The theory behind corporate tax cuts is that lower taxes leave businesses with more capital to invest, which boosts worker productivity and eventually leads to higher wages.The Empirical Reality: Studies analyzing major corporate tax reductions (like the U.S. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act) indicate that a significant portion of tax savings goes directly to corporate executives and shareholders rather than average workers.Income Inequality: Research from institutions like the Harvard Business School Working Knowledge highlights that corporate tax cuts can actually widen the wealth gap, as top earners capture the capital income while wages for lower- and middle-income tiers remain relatively stagnant
@AverageJoe1 saidThat's because Republicans refuse to allow any access to revenue for the government, not because of any fault of the Dems.
If your theory were simply “Democrats manage money better,” then debt as a percentage of GDP , follow here, wouldn’t have continued climbing under BOTH parties over the long time, the long run. But it did.
https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/democrats/2024/10/the-u-s-economy-performs-better-under-democratic-presidents