Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
Off Topic / Re: The Impeachment and Removal of Donald J. Trump
« Last post by Thomas Graves on Today at 06:42:51 AM »
Ae you such a loser that you cannot deal with facts instead of your constant attempt at putting people in a box to avoid discussing actual facts

Matthew,

What "facts"?

The "fact" that Russia didn't invade Crimea and the Donbas"?

The "fact" that 9/11 was an inside job?

The "fact" that the DNC hack was either done by Ukraine, or it was a leak?

The "fact" that the evil CIA killed JFK?

The "fact" that we live in an evil, evil, evil Deep State?

The "fact" that you know what you're talking about?

LOL

-- MWT  ;)
22
Of course, Obama's fault....Tom slaps his own forehead....what could he have been thinking, crediting Obama with bringing down not only trillion dollar annual budget deficits, but also trillion dollar increases in the national debt, to $672 billion.

$253 Billion of the 2009 deficit was Obama's. As were the other yearly deficits up to that of 2017.
23
The site I visited did say 16 million.

The site you visited is wrong.

https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ln

Put a checkmark in the box next to Employment Level - LNS12000000 and then scroll down to retrieve data. Once there , you can choose a wider range of data years to view.

 
Quote
Trump has a 9% larger labor force than when Obama started.

It's actually 6.6% larger.

Quote
We see a steady historic rise in employment numbers simply due to population rise. Comparing the two with spans closer in time (and similar labor force though Trump has an advantage in that regard):



Is that really the case though? The Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate has increased but the unemployment rate has continued to go down.

Quote
Reagan and Nixon were Republicans who did well. But under Reagan, the debt nearly doubled. With a single term, Carter created some ten million jobs. During his two terms, Clinton created a greater number of jobs than Reagan, increasing the debt by 1/3.



Yes, 10 million jobs under Carter but essentially no growth in income; median or mean.
https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/time-series/historical-income-people/p07ar.xls

Also, he left the nation with double digit inflation. Three years in a row saw double digit inflation.  It peaked at 13.5% for the year of 1981. That's what necessitated the tight monetary policy of the Fed and the subsequent recession. Reagan had to deal with the consequences of that runaway inflation and the cure for it. Some government expenditures being indexed with inflation certainly contributed to the increase in the national debt. Reagan's share of the increase in debt was primarily in the form of military spending.

Clinton never had any crisis to deal with, economic or other. The economy was already taking off when he took office, the tech industry had sprouted and had taken off but had yet to ripen, and the end of the Cold War had given him a peace dividend.
24
 
I beg to differ. You claim that the bullet would have had to have been a magic bullet, "performing marvelous and incredible actions". What exactly do you mean? What marvelous and incredible actions did it perform?
Actually I stated 'miraculous' bullet. You begged to differ and that's OK because I lied. CE 399 was probably fired into a folded up mattress a couple of days before the assassination and planted wherever it was found by perhaps Jack Ruby. If the bullet had done what the official story says it did..the story that you believe ...then it would have been miraculous. So Tim...stepped on your own face once more at 80 MPH :-\
25

Do you really believe that the economic crash of 2008 was only two years in the making?

No, I do not.
26
....
Reagan and Nixon were Republicans who did well. But under Reagan, the debt nearly doubled. With a single term, Carter created some ten million jobs. During his two terms, Clinton created a greater number of jobs than Reagan, increasing the debt by 1/3.

....
Under Reagan, the debt nearly tripled.... luckily, inflation was so high at the beginning of his first term, in 2019 dollars it was probably "only" doubled.

https://treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
Sept. 30, 1981 National Debt - $998 billion
Sept. 30, 1989 National Debt - $2857 billion
Sept. 30, 1993 National Debt - $4411 billion
Sept. 30, 2001 National Debt - $5807 Billion
https://treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/search?startMonth=09&startDay=30&startYear=2001&endMonth=09&endDay=30&endYear=2001

Near the bottom of this post, the following paragraph is better explained and I make the case that Royell's "J6P Trump supporter is too ill informed
to be trusted to buy beer, let alone to vote in his own best interest, or in his grandchildrens'.:

Warren or Sanders, working with a democratic legislative majority, would remove this $132,900 cap, call it a surcharge, and preserve the SSA Trust Fund,
and stabilize National Debt growth, in the first six months of the new Democratic political control. A vibrant middle class is the key to National Securiity, VS pardoning war criminals, marketing them as "our warfighters," and using them as props at pathetically extreme political rallies.....
Quote
Maximum Taxable Earnings. When you earn income, including through self-employment, that is covered by Social Security, you pay Social Security taxes each year up to a maximum amount that is set by law. That amount has changed frequently over the years. For 2019, the maximum amount of taxable earnings is $132,900.
Maximum Taxable Earnings - Social Security
https://www.ssa.gov/planners/maxtax.html

First, some more in response to Tim Nickerson:
Quote
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/25/us-deficit-hit-billion-marking-nearly-percent-increase-during-trump-era/
Ezra Klein: Doing the math on Obama's deficits

By Ezra KleinJanuary 31, 2012
The campaign trail can be a lonely place, so Mitt Romney frequently invites friends to accompany him. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is an occasional companion. So is Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell. But more often, Romney brings a large clock.

Romney’s people made it themselves. It has two giant flat-screen televisions pushed side by side. It’s surrounded by a green foam sign. And it’s hooked to two computers feeding it a live count of America’s rising debt burden, which stands well above $15 trillion. The clock represents President Obama’s economic failures. It’s there so Romney can point to it and tell the crowd that if he’s elected, he’ll “do a better job slowing down that clock.” But if you’re a deficit-obsessed voter, the clock doesn’t answer the key question: How much has Obama added to the debt, anyway?

There are two answers: more than $4 trillion, or about $983 billion. The first answer is simple and wrong. The second answer is more complicated but a lot closer to being right.

When Obama took office, the national debt was about $10.5 trillion. Today, it’s about $15.2 trillion. Simple subtraction gets you the answer preferred by most of Obama’s opponents: $4.7 trillion.

But ask yourself: Which of Obama’s policies added $4.7 trillion to the debt? The stimulus? That was just a bit more than $800 billion. TARP? That passed under George W. Bush, and most of it has been repaid.

There is a way to tally the effects Obama has had on the deficit. Look at every piece of legislation he has signed into law. Every time Congress passes a bill, either the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the effect it will have on the budget over the next 10 years. And then they continue to estimate changes to those bills. If you know how to read their numbers, you can come up with an estimate that zeros in on the laws Obama has had a hand in.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities was kind enough to help me come up with a comprehensive estimate of Obama’s effect on the deficit. As it explained to me, it’s harder than it sounds.....

.....The other judgment call was when to end the analysis. After 10 years? After the first term? We chose 2017, the end of a hypothetical second term. Those are the years Obama might be blamed for, so they seemed like the ones to watch. But Obama’s spending is frontloaded, and his savings are backloaded. The stimulus bill, for instance, is mostly finished. But the Budget Control Act is expected to save $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years. The health-care law is expected to save more than a trillion dollars in its second decade. If our numbers were extended further, the analysis would have reflected more of Obama’s planned deficit reduction.

There’s also the issue of who deserves credit for what. In this analysis, anything Obama signed is attributed to Obama. But reality is more complicated. The $2.1 trillion debt-ceiling deal wouldn’t have happened without the Republicans. But a larger deficit-reduction deal — one including tax increases and spending cuts — might have....

......In total, the policies Obama has signed into law can be expected to add almost a trillion dollars to deficits. But behind that total are policies that point in very different directions. The stimulus, for instance, cost more than $800 billion. So did the 2010 tax deal, which included more than $600 billion to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years, and hundreds of billions more in unemployment insurance and the payroll tax cut. Obama’s first budget increased domestic discretionary spending by quite a bit, but more recent legislation has cut it substantially. On the other hand, the Budget Control Act — the legislation that resolved August’s debt-ceiling standoff — saves more than $1 trillion. And the health-care reform law saves more than $100 billion.

For comparison’s sake, using the same method, beginning in 2001 and ending in 2009, George W. Bush added more than $5 trillion to the deficit.

What is often assumed in this conversation is that all deficit spending is equal and all of it is bad. That’s not the case. Deficit spending when the economy is growing is different from deficit spending when the economy is in crisis.

Nor is all deficit reduction alike. Sometimes, cutting the deficit will expand the economy. Sometimes, cutting the deficit will shrink the economy. Which brings up some other questions Romney’s clock can’t answer: What number we should see on it now? And when, and how fast, should it start slowing down?

That will be the subject of next week’s column.

The reason I do not find annual deficit total useful is because, until recently, surplus Social Secuirity "revenue," never included in media or White House reporting of the deficit total, because, by law, it must be spent each year intermingled with income tax and other revenue, was as much as $190 billion annually. It is easy to see how the financial crisis of 2008, coupled with retirement of baby boomers, has drastically cut this annual surplus since the $190 billion peak surplus. The number on the right is the amount US Treasury issues in special bonds, to the SSA trust fund, where it is reflected in the total national debt.

In 2018, surplus Social Security collection had declined to just $3 billion, from $190 billion in 2007. Next year, the reversal will neciessitate budgeting money
to pay for bond redemption from the SSA trust fund, those "worthless pieces of paper," President Bush described in 2005 when he admitted to "catapulting the propaganda to sway the public into supporting a privatization scheme the investor class favored.

Now, with the bilking of America resulting from Trump party tax cuts, this would be the most opportune time ever to remove the Social Security withholding
maximum....as this is the time in history when those earning more than $125,000 can most afford to pay a surcharge to preserve the SSA trust fund level at $2.8 trillion, indefinitely. But of course, this is what the investor class bought and "paid" for with their political contributions!

Making the case Trump supporters, especially in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, are dupes....ignorant fools voting to bankrupt their own grandchildren!

Quote
For the first time in history, U.S. billionaires paid a lower tax rate than the working class last year
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/08/first-time-history-us-billionaires-paid-lower-tax-rate-than-working-class-last-year/
Oct 8, 2019 - The effective tax rate paid by the bottom 50 percent, by contrast, has .... “The rich definitely pay less in taxes than they did in the past and less ...

Trump party supporters: This amount is not sustainable after 2032.... Trump-McConnell reveal absolutely no interest in a surcharge solution similar to what I
described above. Instead, the national debt will increase to pay off the $2.8 trillion bond debt in the SSA trust fund, with no new taxes levied on the wealthiest!


Quote
https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/policy-basics-top-ten-facts-about-social-security
Fact #4: Social Security benefits are modest.
Social Security benefits are much more modest than many people realize; the average Social Security retirement benefit in June 2019 was about $1,470 a month, or about $17,640 a year. (The average disabled worker and aged widow received slightly less.)Aug 14, 2019

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a3.html


27
Off Topic / Re: The Impeachment and Removal of Donald J. Trump
« Last post by Matt Grantham on Today at 05:28:56 AM »
Ae you such a loser that you cannot deal with facts instead of your constant attempt at putting people in a box to avoid discussing actual facts
28
Off Topic / Re: The Impeachment and Removal of Donald J. Trump
« Last post by Thomas Graves on Today at 05:20:11 AM »
Well lets start with Bellingcat and Atlantic Council

https://thegrayzone.com/2018/10/29/shamiwitness-how-bellingcat-and-neocons-collaborated-with-the-most-influential-isis-propagandist-on-twitter/

 Waiting for replies on Crimea

thegrayzone ?

Looks like "KGB" propaganda to me.

Crimea?

Why don't you just google "little green men" + crimea ?

By the way, do you still think 9/11 was an inside job?

Still think the DNC hack was a leak?  (Or have you come around to believing Ukraine did it in order to blame it on Russia?)

Do you think the evil, evil, evil CIA killed JFK?

Are there any tinfoil hat conspiracy theories you don't believe in?

Flat Earth?

Moon Landings?

The Illuminati?

THE DEEP STATE ?

LOL

--  MWT  ;)
30
Actually, the difference in the number employed in Dec 2009 and January 2017 is 14,115,000. That is adjusted for inflation. Even including the number for the extra month (Dec 2009), we get a yearly average of 2,016,428.

The site I visited did say 16 million. Trump has a 9% larger labor force than when Obama started. We see a steady historic rise in employment numbers simply due to population rise. Comparing the two with spans closer in time (and similar labor force though Trump has an advantage in that regard):



Quote
The number employed as of last month was 158,593,000. The number of employed in Jan 2017 was 152,128,000. That's a difference of 6,465,000. I recall seeing 6.8 million somewhere which is why I said close to 7 million. Using 6,465,000, and ignoring that we are two months short of three years, we get a yearly average of 2,155,000.

I'm using actual data provided at the BLS site.

https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ln

Looking at Reagan's numbers, by your reasoning, he's one of the greatest President ever. Although, I suspect that Tom Scully may disagree. Remember the great recession of the early 80s? The job losses of that recession stopped in Dec 1982. Using 17,676,000 jobs created we get a yearly average of 2,946,000‬.

Reagan and Nixon were Republicans who did well. But under Reagan, the debt nearly doubled. With a single term, Carter created some ten million jobs. During his two terms, Clinton created a greater number of jobs than Reagan, increasing the debt by 1/3.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
Mobile View