Donald Trump & 2016 Election

[tim_m]

You do realize that was largely paying for the Bush wars that Bush kept off the books, plus he had a recession, a housing crisis and The auto industry on the verge of collapse early on and the financial crisis.

[damnthehaters]

You do realize that was largely paying for the Bush wars that Bush kept off the books, plus he had a recession, a housing crisis and The auto industry on the verge of collapse early on and the financial crisis.

How did he CUT IT IN HALF?  That’s what Pilferk said

[pilferk]

Please just try to explain these for me?

Under Obama's first two years and change, the national debt grew by 33%, and it grew by 84% by the end of the 2016 fiscal year.

How did he cut it in half?  Am I thinking of something else? 

Then you don't understand what the budget deficit is.  It's the annual difference between what we budget to spend (or actually spend, if you're into deep historical analysis), and what we receive in revenue.

Under Bush, that number topped a trillion dollars.

Obama's budget deficit was around 500 billion, by his second term.

And in terms of GDP, it was a MUCH lower % than under Bush.  9% under Bush, about 4% under Obama.

More revenue AND less spending.

Not the debt...that continued to grow, though it grew slower than it did under Bush and a LOT slower than it has under Trump.

Again, FACT.

You're including, in your national debt analysis (I think) things that were not on the budget, that Obama had to cover the costs for.  Most of them Bush initiatives (esp in the first 2 years) and the results of the Recession.  By the by, Obama brought that stuff back ON the books during his administration.  So, as good as things look for Obama..they'd look BETTER if Bush had actually added those items to the budget, instead of treating them like special (aka off the books) expenditures.

The two things (whatever yours is vs budget deficit) you are trying to compare are not remotely the same, and are not comparable.

My family is getting a 3% tax cut Under Trumps plan.  I’ve seen it first hand in my returns.  Child tax break is also very nice.  You somehow turn this into a negative? 

Your middle/working class tax break? Nope, enjoy it.  

BUT, it hasn't done much to spur economic growth because it's too small.  And it's finite in duration.  And they phase out (which means your break this year is less than last years, and will be til they disappear).

The tax cut bill in general? Yeah. It sucked. Because it increased the budget deficit to well over a trillion dollars (again), has spurned the growth of our national debt, and has had no marked effect on the economy.  We are in no better a position than we were, economically, before the tax bill.  Except you have about $20 extra in your pocket...3/4 of which is being spent on higher consumer good prices to fund Trumps tariffs. Enjoy your extra Starbucks coffee, on Trump!

So, in essence, we have the same Obama economic trends (and, in some cases, slowing trends)...but we're paying more for them.  Your 3% (roughly 1200 or so?) tax cut is a comparative pittance.  The corporate tax cut (and the one on the wealthy) though?  It's basically handing it to them, to hoard, so that at some later date we are all, collectively, on the hook for it. You're basically charging it all on the countries credit card and giving it to the people who need it the least.  And the promised economic boom, and increase in GDP, and increase in jobs that would offset the lost revenue.....none of it has appeared as promised.

You don't like the thought of paying for other people's healthcare but are 100% OK with funding corporate hand outs/wellfare (to those that don't need it)? All to get $20 a week?  Amazon and Walmart, with the tax break, not only paid no taxes in 2018 (on billions in revenue), they actually got money BACK (and I'm talking a hundred million+). Both those companies pay their employees shit, have shrunk big chunks of their work force in 2017-2019 (preferring automation and subcontractors), and provide butkiss for benefits.

That's what the tax cut bill got you. Screwed.  And your unwillingness to look beyond conservative talking points telling you that the tax cut is the second coming, unwillingness to look at facts and data, and your unwillingness to listen to anything other than dogma is blinding you to that fact.  You took the blue pill, dude.

The economy actually functions better when the middle and working class drive it.  When they are the ones with the money in their pockets...because they spend it.  Which means there is need for more goods to satisfy their needs, more jobs to make, distribute and sell those goods, and more service people to support those businesses (and consumers).  TRICKLE UP has fueled every economic recovery we've had since the 70's.  And guess what: That's not the Republican economic theory.

What would likely work better is to give the middle class the 15-20% tax break, and raise corporate taxes 5-7% (that's about the offset for revenue equivalence...it might be as high as 9%).  

Trickle up has several examples of working. Obama and Clinton are decent ones.  Trickle down has...not one in the last 50 years. Every time we've tried it, corporations hoard the wealth.  And we eventually run into a recession...that a democrat turns around into prosperity. Lest you forget, Obama presided over the longest span of economic recovery/growth in the modern era.  Trump would need to get to year 6, without recession, to match that.

So much nonsense in your responses. 

I mean, I understand what a budget deficit is.

And yes: You've made your opinion on facts, data, and history known already.  It's too bad, IMHO, that you chalk that up to "nonsense" and prefer dogma.  But to each their own.

You say you don’t by the “time” thing.  You think if I take 3 minutes to reply to one of your messages, thats gonna be it?  No, because you will then respond to every detail of my response.  It’s never ending with you.  So yeah, I don’t have time.  And it’s pointless.  Honestly don’t even know why I’m replying now.  I guess to see the way you’re going to spin these topics again.

Again, I provide you with facts and evidence and examples.  

You prefer unfounded opinion, whataboutism, logical fallacies, hypocrisy, and false equivalencies. You said it yourself.  That's likely why you get exhausted....

I'm not surprised you "don't have the time".  Again, the classic board warrior deflection.

[pilferk]

You do realize that was largely paying for the Bush wars that Bush kept off the books, plus he had a recession, a housing crisis and The auto industry on the verge of collapse early on and the financial crisis.

It's OK.

He doesn't understand what a budget deficit is.  He seems to think it's the national debt or something? I don't know.  Seems like he's talking nonsense.

[pilferk]

You do realize that was largely paying for the Bush wars that Bush kept off the books, plus he had a recession, a housing crisis and The auto industry on the verge of collapse early on and the financial crisis.

How did he CUT IT IN HALF?  That’s what Pilferk said

Here's a GREAT article that will help explain it all to you. BUT, I warn you, it has facts and data in it!!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2018/01/15/obamas-federal-debt-grew-at-a-slower-rate-than-reagan-h-w-bush-or-w-bush/#229dda051917

The first thing you notice when looking at the federal deficits from fiscal 2007 (the U.S. government fiscal year ends in September) is that it increased by almost $1 trillion from fiscal 2008 (two months before Obama was elected and four months before he was sworn in) to fiscal 2009. It remained over $1 trillion per year for four years and got below Bush’s last years deficit in fiscal 2015. It continued to decrease until Obama’s last year and has increased in Trump’s first year in office.


Fiscal 2009: $1.4 trillion (Obama’s first year and in the teeth of the Recession)
Fiscal 2010: $1.3 trillion
Fiscal 2011: $1.3 trillion
Fiscal 2012: $1.1 trillion
Fiscal 2013: $680 billion
Fiscal 2014: $485 billion
Fiscal 2015: $438 billion
Fiscal 2016: $587 billion
Fiscal 2017: $666 billion (Trump’s first year of his Presidency)
It is clear that the almost $1 trillion jump between fiscal 2008 and 2009 was due to the Great Recession. Tax receipts fell, expenditures rose and Obama and Congress passed the American Economy and Reinvestment Act to combat the recession.

A better way to analyze the federal debt

Using percentages is a better way of analyzing data in a lot of cases as it compensates when the data set numbers are larger or smaller from each other. Federal debt falls into this category as it increases over time. The compounding impact of growth can make using absolute numbers meaningless.

How much did the total deficit rise by each President since Reagan

Again using data from the St. Louis Federal Reserve, these are starting and ending federal debt numbers since President Reagan. I’ve computed the total percentage increase and the compounded yearly rate.

What the numbers show is that the total debt increased the most at 184% over 8 years and at the fastest rate under President Reagan at almost 14% per year. In fact, the three Republican presidents had the fastest growing debt on a yearly basis.

Reagan
Started Presidency: $965 billion
Ended Presidency: $2.74 trillion
Increased 184% or 13.9% per year

H.W. Bush
Started Presidency: $2.74 trillion
Ended Presidency: $4.23 trillion
Increased 54% or 11.5% per year (only in office for four years)

Clinton
Started Presidency: $4.23 trillion
Ended Presidency: $5.77 trillion
Increased 36% or 4.0% per year

W. Bush
Started Presidency: $5.77 trillion
Ended Presidency: $11.1 trillion
Increased 93% or 8.5% per year

Obama
Started Presidency: $11.1 trillion
Ended Presidency: $19.85 trillion
Increased 78% or 7.5% per year

President Obama’s debt actually grew at a slower annual rate than any of the Republican presidents even though there were events that negatively impacted the deficit that started before he became President. The Great Recession is probably the biggest of them as can be seen in the yearly deficit numbers.

Just to add a little more data, since the article is old:

Trump deficit, 2018: 779 Billion
Trump deficit, 2019: 1.1 trillion (and he's not funding an auto bail out, a bank bail out, 2 full scale foreign wars, or in the midst of a recession).

[damnthehaters]

Please just try to explain these for me?

Under Obama's first two years and change, the national debt grew by 33%, and it grew by 84% by the end of the 2016 fiscal year.

How did he cut it in half?  Am I thinking of something else? 

Then you don't understand what the budget deficit is.  It's the annual difference between what we budget to spend (or actually spend, if you're into deep historical analysis), and what we receive in revenue.

Under Bush, that number topped a trillion dollars.

Obama's budget deficit was around 500 billion.

And in terms of GDP, it was a MUCH lower % than under Bush.  9% under Bush, about 4% under Obama.

More revenue AND less spending.

Not the debt...that continued to grow, though it grew slower than it did under Bush and a LOT slower than it has under Trump.

Again, FACT.

You're including, in your national debt analysis (I think) things that were not on the budget, that Obama had to cover the costs for.  Most of them Bush initiatives (esp in the first 2 years).  By the by, Obama brought that stuff back ON the books during his administration.

Those two things (whatever yours is vs budget deficit) are not remotely the same, and are not comparable.

My family is getting a 3% tax cut Under Trumps plan.  I’ve seen it first hand in my returns.  Child tax break is also very nice.  You somehow turn this into a negative? 

Your middle/working class tax break? Nope, enjoy it.  

BUT, it hasn't done much to spur economic growth because it's too small.  And it's finite in duration.  And they phase out (which means your break this year is less than last years, and will be til they disappear).

The tax cut bill in general? Yeah. It sucked. Because it increased the budget deficit to well over a trillion dollars (again), has spurned the growth of our national debt, and has had no marked effect on the economy.  We are in no better a position than we were, economically, before the tax bill.  Except you have about $20 extra in your pocket...3/4 of which is being spent on higher consumer good prices to fund Trumps tariffs. Enjoy your extra Starbucks coffee, on Trump!

So, in essence, we have the same Obama economic trends (and, in some cases, slowing trends)...but we're paying more for them.  Your 3% (roughly 1200 or so?) tax cut is a comparative pittance.  The corporate tax cut (and the one on the wealthy) though?  It's basically handing it to them, to hoard, so that at some later date we are all, collectively, on the hook for it. You're basically charging it all on the countries credit card and giving it to the people who need it the least.  And the promised economic boom, and increase in GDP, and increase in jobs that would offset the lost revenue.....none of it has appeared as promised.

You don't like the thought of paying for other people's healthcare but are 100% OK with funding corporate hand outs/wellfare (to those that don't need it)? All to get $20 a week?  Amazon and Walmart, with the tax break, not only paid no taxes in 2018 (on billions in revenue), they actually got money BACK (and I'm talking a hundred million+). Both those companies pay their employees shit, have shrunk big chunks of their work force in 2017-2019 (preferring automation and subcontractors), and provide butkiss for benefits.

That's what the tax cut bill got you. Screwed.  And your unwillingness to look beyond conservative talking points telling you that the tax cut is the second coming, unwillingness to look at facts and data, and your unwillingness to listen to anything other than dogma is blinding you to that fact.  You took the blue pill, dude.

The economy actually functions better when the middle and working class drive it.  When they are the ones with the money in their pockets...because they spend it.  Which means there is need for more goods to satisfy their needs, more jobs to make, distribute and sell those goods, and more service people to support those businesses (and consumers).  TRICKLE UP has fueled every economic recovery we've had since the 70's.  And guess what: That's not the Republican economic theory.

What would likely work better is to give the middle class the 15-20% tax break, and raise corporate taxes 5-7% (that's about the offset for revenue equivalence...it might be as high as 9%).  

Trickle up has several examples of working. Obama and Clinton are decent ones.  Trickle down has...not one in the last 50 years. Every time we've tried it, corporations hoard the wealth.  And we eventually run into a recession...that a democrat turns around into prosperity. Lest you forget, Obama presided over the longest span of economic recovery/growth in the modern era.  Trump would need to get to year 6, without recession, to match that.

So much nonsense in your responses. 

I mean, I understand what a budget deficit is.

And yes: You've made your opinion on facts, data, and history known already.  It's too bad, IMHO, that you chalk that up to "nonsense" and prefer dogma.  But to each their own.

You say you don’t by the “time” thing.  You think if I take 3 minutes to reply to one of your messages, thats gonna be it?  No, because you will then respond to every detail of my response.  It’s never ending with you.  So yeah, I don’t have time.  And it’s pointless.  Honestly don’t even know why I’m replying now.  I guess to see the way you’re going to spin these topics again.

Again, I provide you with facts and evidence and examples.  

You prefer unfounded opinion, whataboutism, logical fallacies, hypocrisy, and false equivalencies. You said it yourself.  That's likely why you get exhausted....

I'm not surprised you "don't have the time".  Again, the classic board warrior deflection.

Ok, deficits.  If you can’t use the national debt to paint a good picture, I guess you’ll move into deficits.  I actually read a great article on this a while back.  I’ll find it for you so that you can dissect the shit out of it.  Things aren’t always black and white.


Thanks for admitting the tax breaks have been good for my family.  I didn’t need the 8 extra paragraphs.

The board warrior deflection comment...😄  I guess only people like you would know

[damnthehaters]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/articles/2017-10-02/former-president-barack-obamas-real-economic-record-isnt-pretty%3fcontext=amp

And here’s an interesting one

https://www.thebalance.com/deficit-by-president-what-budget-deficits-hide-3306151


Some good stuff?  Some trash?  Some twisting?  You be the judge. I’m sure you’ll say anything that looks positive for a Republican will be garbage...because of the site, someone’s opinion, or some other reason.  You will definitely have your reasons.  Can’t wait to get a 12 paragraph response.  Oh, and that must mean you are right....

[pilferk]

Ok, deficits.  If you can’t use the national debt to paint a good picture, I guess you’ll move into deficits.  I actually read a great article on this a while back.  I’ll find it for you so that you can dissect the shit out of it.  Things aren’t always black and white.

I didn't move into anything.  You did.  I said deficits right from the start. Not sure why YOU were confused.

But, again, I posted the forbes article that showed debt growth was slower under Obama than it was under any Republican (including Reagan) in the past 50 years.

So.....if you want to move to debt, we can do that too.

Especially considering Obama was recovering from a recession he inherited from a Republican Administration (a common occurance for Dem presidents in the last 50 years).

Thanks for admitting the tax breaks have been good for my family.  I didn’t need the 8 extra paragraphs.

I never said otherwise.  Quite the strawman you're building there.

But the question was never "is it good for you". I never said it wasn't. That's deflection.  And thus why you got the rest of it. Because it actually addressed the larger point.

Oh, the classic board warrior deflection comment.  I guess only people like you would know

Nope, pretty much everyone knows it.  It's THAT kind of obvious.

[pilferk]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/articles/2017-10-02/former-president-barack-obamas-real-economic-record-isnt-pretty%3fcontext=amp

And here’s an interesting one

https://www.thebalance.com/deficit-by-president-what-budget-deficits-hide-3306151


Some good stuff?  Some trash?  Some twisting?  You be the judge. I’m sure you’ll say anything that looks positive for a Republican will be garbage...because of the site, someone’s opinion, or some other reason.  You will definitely have your reasons.  Can’t wait to get a 12 paragraph response.  Oh, and that must mean you are right....

Did you read it? Actually read it?  You didn't, did you?

You just made my case for me.  Lock. Stock. Barrel.

I don't have to post anything else.

Obama lowered the Bush inherited deficits by half.  It's right there in YOUR article!

Obama's debt grew slower than any other Republican President in the last 50 years, by %. (Edit: WHOOPS! I missed HW bush! He was only 54% growth for his one term). It's right there in YOUR article.

And, as it explained, his total deficit and total debt was almost entirely front loaded in his first 2 years...because of a Recession. It's explained right there in YOUR article.  You don't even have to take MY word for it!

Thanks you and good night! Tip your waiters!

Edit: The only funny business is the way the article plays with 2009 and 2010 budgets.  The stimulus was a FY 2009 budget item.  The Balance can not like that that is true, but it was passed almost immediately after Obama took office...and was largely crafted by BOTH Obama and Bush.

You can't just add from one budget to another because you don't like the way the process worked.

The forbes article is more accurate, and, dare I say, a more definitive source.  I mean, it's freaking forbes.

[pilferk]

One little add:

HW bush was better than Obama.  His one term presidency only saw an increase of 54%.  My bad for missing that one!

Obama's second term was better than HW's one term, but his first term was worse.

Oh, and by comparison...if we're talking about debt or deficit, Trump has grown them faster than Bush I, Bush II, Clinton, or Obama.  He's gunning for Ronny Ray Gun historical levels.  Which was REALLY where we started in all this: Trump vs the Dem candidates in terms of "choices".

[tim_m]

Another thing you have to remember is that a newly sworn in president operates their almost entire first year under the previous administration final budget, since the US government fiscal year runs from October 1 to September 30. So much of the deficit from his first year belongs to Bush not Obama.

[damnthehaters]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/articles/2017-10-02/former-president-barack-obamas-real-economic-record-isnt-pretty%3fcontext=amp

And here’s an interesting one

https://www.thebalance.com/deficit-by-president-what-budget-deficits-hide-3306151


Some good stuff?  Some trash?  Some twisting?  You be the judge. I’m sure you’ll say anything that looks positive for a Republican will be garbage...because of the site, someone’s opinion, or some other reason.  You will definitely have your reasons.  Can’t wait to get a 12 paragraph response.  Oh, and that must mean you are right....

Did you read it? Actually read it?  You didn't, did you?

You just made my case for me.  Lock. Stock. Barrel.

I don't have to post anything else.

Obama lowered the Bush inherited deficits by half.  It's right there in YOUR article!

Obama's debt grew slower than any other Republican President in the last 50 years, by %. (Edit: WHOOPS! I missed HW bush! He was only 54% growth for his one term). It's right there in YOUR article.

And, as it explained, his total deficit and total debt was almost entirely front loaded in his first 2 years...because of a Recession. It's explained right there in YOUR article.  You don't even have to take MY word for it!

Thanks you and good night! Tip your waiters!

Edit: The only funny business is the way the article plays with 2009 and 2010 budgets.  The stimulus was a FY 2009 budget item.  The Balance can not like that that is true, but it was passed almost immediately after Obama took office...and was largely crafted by BOTH Obama and Bush.

You can't just add from one budget to another because you don't like the way the process worked.

The forbes article is more accurate, and, dare I say, a more definitive source.  I mean, it's freaking forbes.

lol..  Did I read it, did I? Did I?  lol.  How you view things is beyond me.  How you got Obama deceasing his deficit by half out of those numbers and articles is beyond me.   We can all see what we want to see.  A liberal will spin Obama’s avg economy into a good one.

Here is some simple math for the Obama worshippers (taking lines from you now..😁): $585 billion, the deficit at the end of the Obama presidency, is higher than $459 billion, the deficit at the beginning of the Obama presidency.

Yes, some of the deficit was because of Bush, but to sit here and say it’s all Bush and not hold Obama accountable at all is absurd, and something only extreme left leaning people would do. Obama made the deficit hundreds of billions of dollars worse with a stimulus plan that by the administration's own admission didn't create a single new job. The number of jobs in 2009, 2010 and 2011 was lower than Obama's economists predicted we would get if we had done nothing and not wasted $800 billion.  But I guess you are chalking this expense up under Bush..🙄.  Obama had to do this?  Obama had to come up with an $800 billion stimulus plan that didn’t work?  Pretty smart by Obama really.  By pushing that $800 billion gut bomb through in his first year, his fan base and liberal friends can just say....well that’s on Bush.  🙄.

2008 — $459
2009 — $1,413
2010 — $1,294
2011 — $1,300
2012 — $1,087
2013 — $680
2014 — $485
2015 — $438
2016 — $585

So you’re saying the bump in 2009 is all because of Bush?  How convenient of you to either not include the $800 billion stimulus bill on Obama’s tab, or simply say that it was a given cost because of Bush.  By doing this, I guess it’s a “fact” that Obama decreased the deficit by half...🙄. 


I love how you are arguing things i mentioned nothing of.  (Debt growing slower for example). Who said anything about that?   Is a diet successful if you start by weighing 200 pounds and eight years later you weigh 400 pounds? Would anyone in that position say, "I may be obese now, but at least I'm putting on the pounds at a slower pace"?

Go on, let’s see your 15 paragraph response.  But then again, maybe you won’t reply, because you so arrogantly said  “Lock. Stock, Barrell.”...l

[tim_m]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/30/politics/alexander-vindman-testimony-white-house-transcript/index.html

[pilferk]

lol..  Did I read it, did I? Did I?  lol.  How you view things is beyond me.  How you got Obama deceasing his deficit by half out of those numbers and articles is beyond me.   We can all see what we want to see.  A liberal will spin Obama’s crap economy into a good one.

Here is some simple math for the Obama worshippers (taking lines from you now..😁): $585 billion, the deficit at the end of the Obama presidency, is higher than $459 billion, the deficit at the beginning of the Obama presidency.

So, that's a no, you didn't read it.  Because the article LITERALLY contradicts and explains away the rest of your post that follows.

Again, you are demonstrating you don't understand how the deficit works.

The deficit, for any first year president, is his predecessors.  That's how the budget works.  Bush created the FY2009 budget, which went into effect in Oct, 2008 (because fiscal years run Oct - Sept, for the federal government).

So, Obama inherited a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit. That is the accepted economic practice when considering deficits.

He reduced it, at it's lowest, to 438 billion (and 585 billion in his last year, and 666 billion in Trumps first).  That's LESS THAN HALF of 1.4 trillion.

Math is your friend.

Again, this isn't spin.  It's accepted economic practice. Its a fact. You can not like it.  You can object to it.  You can froth and sputter and complain (as you do in the ensuing response) about it.  But that's the facts, jack.

As for Obama's crap economy....well, you're still experiencing the same basic economic trends.  So you must HATE the Trump economy, given his promises.

Through all your failed rationalization, misunderstandings, and claims that "anyone can twist numbers" (even while trying to do exactly that, in conflict with long established normal accepted practices/conceptions), this is piece that most proves my point, and it's your own words. You are, without knowing it, admitting you are incapable of looking at two sets of data, from the same definitive source(s), and seeing they are similar/the same.

Which explains why you don't like numbers, facts and data.

All your accusations of bias ...and you are incapable of seeing your own.

Tip your waiters, indeed.

Yes, some of the deficit was because of Bush, but to sit here and say it’s all Bush and not hold Obama accountable at all is absurd, and something only extreme left leaning people would do.

No, it's accepted economic practice.  The previous administration set the budget for that fiscal year (which goes into effect the October PRIOR to the new administration taking office).  That's the way it works.

Obama made the deficit hundreds of billions of dollars worse with a stimulus plan that by the administration's own admission didn't create a single new job.

A stimulus plan that was, at least in part, crafted by Bush and implemented by Obama because Bush ran out of time getting it signed.  Ditto with the auto bailout plan.

The number of jobs in 2009, 2010 and 2011 was lower than Obama's economists predicted we would get if we had done nothing and not wasted $800 billion.  But I guess you are chalking this expense up under Bush..🙄. 

Irrelevant to the point being made. And more whataboutism.

I was no fan of the stimulus package.  It should have gone to infrastructure.

But only about 250 billion of that stimulus was added to the budget (again, read your own article).

Obama had to do this?  Obama had to come up with an $800 billion stimulus plan that didn’t work?  Pretty smart by Obama really.  By pushing that $800 billion gut bomb through in his first year, his fan base and liberal friends can just say....well that’s on Bush.  🙄.

Because, at least in part, it was.

2008 — $459
2009 — $1,413
2010 — $1,294
2011 — $1,300
2012 — $1,087
2013 — $680
2014 — $485
2015 — $438
2016 — $585

So you’re saying the bump in 2009 is all because of Bush?  How convenient of you to either not include the $800 billion stimulus bill on Obama’s tab, or simply say that it was a given cost because of Bush.  By doing this, I guess it’s a “fact” that Obama decreased the deficit by half...🙄. 

Because it factually, actually, is.  It was his budget. HIS ADMINISTRATION WROTE IT (and his congress passed it).

Why are you having a hard time grasping this concept?

I love how you are arguing things i mentioned nothing of.  (Debt growing slower for example). Who said anything about that?   Is a diet successful if you start by weighing 200 pounds and eight years later you weigh 400 pounds? Would anyone in that position say, "I may be obese now, but at least I'm putting on the pounds at a slower pace"?

You brought up debt and spending when you couldn't figure out what a budget deficit was.  Are you forgetting your own words?  Here:

Under Obama's first two years and change, the national debt grew by 33%, and it grew by 84% by the end of the 2016 fiscal year.

I was simply addressing, even given your misunderstanding and nonsense, Obama did better than most Republican administrations do on the topic you were bringing up, seemingly out of the blue.

But I know...all these facts and data and information is hard for you to digest.  You seem to be getting, to use your words, twisted.

Go on, let’s see your 15 paragraph response.  But then again, maybe you won’t reply, because you so arrogantly said  “Lock. Stock, Barrell.”...l

You continue to mention the length of my responses.  Are you having size envy?

You keep proving my points for me....all while demonstrating you don't understand budget deficits or how government economics work.

Explains your perspective quite well, actually.

[damnthehaters]

Wow.  So Obama’s $800 billion plan is indeed chalked up under Bush in your mind.     Obama made the move, not Bush, you fool.  You can’t even accept the fact that Obama played a part. 

Yes, the article talks about inheriting deficit in the first year.  But the stimulus package wasn’t inherited.  Obama pushed and pushed for this and House Democrats passed.  See it how you want.  This is common party twist to make your boy look better.   

LOCK! STOCK! BARRELL!  ... . 

Spare me your “facts”

Am I coming at you a bit?  Yes...because I’m tired of the way you talk to people on here.  You’re nothing more than message board bully with nothing better to do.   

 ✌🏻

[pilferk]

Wow.  So Obama’s $800 billion plan is indeed chalked up under Bush in your mind.     Obama made the move, not Bush, you fool.  You can’t even accept the fact that Obama played a part. 

Nothing to do with my mind.  Economic practice. I'm so very sorry that offends your sensibilities.  I know, all those pesky facts and data and stuff.

I also said he had a part.  Twice.

And again, only 250 million was tacked on to the 2009 budget. According to YOUR OWN ARTICLE (which you obviously didn't read). Even if we deduct THAT from the 1.4 trillion Obama inherited, and use the skewed TheBalance number? The math still works out to reducing the deficit by just about half.

Why you're having such a hard time with this, I don't know. Out of all the hills for you to choose to die on...this is one, for sure. 

Yes, the article talks about inheriting deficit in the first year.  But the stimulus package wasn’t inherited smart ass. 

Its funny.  You object to people hurling insults and then....that's the tactic you resort to when you're proven incorrect, or it's shown you don't understand.  Interesting, no? And CERTAINLY hypocritical.

That's quite the  temper tantrum you've got going on.  One that displays, again, a complete lack of understanding of how the process worked and works.

See it how you want.  Looks like you are the one who doesn’t understand.  This is common party twist to make your boy look better.   

The article YOU posted says the same thing I am saying.  Repeatedly. And with exquisite detail.

As does economic theory.

LOCK! STOCK! BARRELL!  ... .  DB

Spare me your “facts” bullshit.  L L L

Yup, that's what I said. Glad we agree!

Thanks for, again, proving my point so thoroughly! 

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Bad news for those who are cheering for a recession -

October job creation comes in at 128,000, easily topping estimates even with GM auto strike

Nonfarm payrolls rose by 128,000 in October, exceeding the estimate of 75,000 from economists surveyed by Dow Jones.
   
There were big revisions of past numbers as well. August’s initial 168,000 payrolls addition was revised up to 219,000, while September’s jumped from 136,000 to 180,000.
   
The unemployment rate ticked slightly higher to 3.6% from 3.5%, still near the lowest in 50 years.
 
The pace of average hourly earnings picked up a bit, rising 0.1% to a year-over-year 3% gain.

more - https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/01/jobs-report-october-2019.html

[tim_m]

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/467694-business-hiring-falls-to-7-year-low-in-us-survey

[pilferk]

Bad news for those who are cheering for a recession -

October job creation comes in at 128,000, easily topping estimates even with GM auto strike

Nonfarm payrolls rose by 128,000 in October, exceeding the estimate of 75,000 from economists surveyed by Dow Jones.
   
There were big revisions of past numbers as well. August’s initial 168,000 payrolls addition was revised up to 219,000, while September’s jumped from 136,000 to 180,000.
   
The unemployment rate ticked slightly higher to 3.6% from 3.5%, still near the lowest in 50 years.
 
The pace of average hourly earnings picked up a bit, rising 0.1% to a year-over-year 3% gain.

more - https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/01/jobs-report-october-2019.html

Good thing nobody around here is doing that (or has done that) and anyone who says they have is lying (and its a lie people on here have called you out for, in the past).

Again, truth is your friend.

These numbers mean average monthly job growth, year over year, is slowing (167k per month in 2019 vs 223k per month in 2018).  The number beat expectations....which were incredibly low...which is the one bright spot in these numbers.  It's really the only one.  Trumps first 3 years of job growth numbers continue to pale in comparison to Obamas, over his last 3 years.

Wage growth was a paltry .1% for the month, and has stagnated.  That's not good, given we're at full employment.  It again shows that companies are hoarding their tax money/using it for stock buy backs vs using it for hiring or to push wages higher.

Manufacturing is doing horrible. 3 straight months of job decline and no real changes to that in sight.

It's nice to see the upward revisions for Aug and Sept....but I'll withhold judgement on their accuracy because they are the first upward revisions we've seen recently (after a LONG string of downward revisions which were questionable in terms of timeliness and %).

GDP growth for Q3 was 1.9%.  We glossed passed that over the past couple weeks....slowing further.  And since GDP growth is the ACTUAL indicator tied to a recession, it's the one we should all be more concerned with.

Personal consumption is down a full percentage point.

Business investment is down precipitously, and trending into negative territory.

Services consumption is down by close to 30%.

Q4 GDP growth is being projected about at 1% right now.

A "slower but less disappointing than we expected" jobs report isn't an indicator that the economy isn't slowing.

As always, we'll see.  But for those hoping to avoid a recession (which is pretty much everyone, I'd guess), the news isn't all roses and rainbows...and neither, really, is the jobs report. 

[tim_m]

Now Trump is withholding funding getting California for wildfire cleaning. Someone might want to let him know those are federal lands, therefore the responsibility of the government. They should also tell him many of those areas are conservative strongholds.