How are we going to pay for all this shit?

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by bambino

NEW!

President Donald J. Trump:

“Mitch McConnell just folded on the Debt Ceiling, a total victory for the Democrats—didn’t use it to kill the $5 Trillion Dollar (real number!) Build Back Worse Bill that will essentially change the fabric of our Country forever. The Old Crow’s two-month extension, and the break up of the Bill into two parts, gave the Democrats everything they needed. The Dems would have folded completely if Mitch properly played his hand, and if not, the Debt Ceiling scenario would be far less destructive than the Bill that will get passed. He has all the cards to win, but not the “guts” to play them. Instead, he gives our Country away, just like he did with the two Senate seats in Georgia, and the Presidency itself. The Old Crow is a disaster!”

@LizHarrington76

Donald J. Trump continues his crusade to make America a one party state by nuking Mitch McConnell and every other Republican who doesn't subscribe to his bat-shit-crazy theories on election fraud.

What a hypocrite. He keeps trying to pass the blame for losing the Senate to other people, like Mitch McConnell and Brian Kemp, when he's the loser who's responsible:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-...mp-11638835818

Trump’s Georgia Vendetta
He stokes a GOP primary fight that may elect Stacey Abrams.

For a glimpse of the long shadow Donald Trump may cast over the 2022 midterm elections, see former Sen. David Perdue’s Monday announcement that he’ll challenge Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp in a Republican primary. This is a good way to turn a major state over to the progressive left.

Mr. Trump has prodded Mr. Perdue to jump into the race for months, as part of the former President’s vendetta against Mr. Kemp. He claims the Governor didn’t fight hard enough to overturn Mr. Trump’s loss of the state in 2020.

Mr. Perdue’s video announcement swims in that muddy water, going so far as to blame Mr. Kemp for the Senator’s own loss in a runoff on Jan. 5. He claims Georgia Republicans were “divided” because Mr. Kemp “caved” and “cost us two Senate seats, the Senate majority, and gave Joe Biden free rein.”

Mr. Perdue is free to compete, but not to rewrite history. Mr. Trump lost Georgia in the 2020 presidential race, as audits and recounts have underscored. Yet rather than cast the state’s two Senate runoff elections weeks later as a means of checking an incoming Democratic President, Mr. Trump made the Senate races a referendum on his claims of election fraud, which discouraged GOP turnout. Mr. Perdue also ran a lackluster campaign against Jon Ossoff, a weak candidate who lost a swing-district House race in the Atlanta suburbs in 2017.

A Kemp-Perdue primary will help nobody more than Stacey Abrams, the progressive who said last week that she’ll run again for Governor after she lost to Mr. Kemp in 2018. Mr. Kemp has been hurt by the Trump barrage but in recent months had shown progress reuniting his party. He signed a Georgia voting reform that shored up ballot integrity and made it easier to vote. He’s capably led the Peach State during Covid, keeping the economy relatively open. The state jobless rate is an historic low of 3.1%.

Mr. Perdue won his first race, but his re-election campaign was dogged by investigations into his stock trading while in office. The former businessman was investigated by the Justice Department and Securities and Exchange Commission with no charges to show for it, but the media and Democrats will hammer the story to portray him as a rich guy who gamed the system. Mr. Perdue’s ties to Mr. Trump cost him support in the Atlanta suburbs, where GOP candidates need to do well to win in swing states like Georgia.

The Republican Governors Association may feel compelled to defend Mr. Kemp as the incumbent. But those dollars would be better spent making more races competitive in states where suburban and independent voters will be looking to put a check on Democratic excess. Whoever wins the primary will be handicapped against Ms. Abrams, who will have a united party.

Republicans are poised for major gains in 2022 as voters recoil against the Democratic Party’s hard left turn. But the GOP’s biggest obstacle will be party divisions, stoked by Mr. Trump, and candidates he supports not because they’re better but because they hedge or obfuscate on whether he lost the election.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by WTF

You really are slow...I've already answered you.

The ratio had been slowly going down.

That is the focus Grasshopper and Reagan was the one who jumped started it (the ratio) going back up. I would provide a graph for you but I think it would just confuse further!

From a high of 119% in 1946 to 32% and then old Ronnie Pooh had it back up to 50%.


so you admit the full numbers you refused to post show many examples of over 100 percent debt to GDP. thanks for clearing that up!



But myself and Tiny are waiting to hear from the forums own self professed genius....if you thought that was you, my apologies but jackass is close enough here!

It is too late to sit down before you embarrass yourself but it's not too late to stfu

once again you used stats out of context to prove a point that does not exist.

[Salty Again]

... Blimey! The Wall Street Journal... They like Trump.

What? ... Couldn't find a "award-winning" piece
in National Review??

### Salty

[WTF]

Originally Posted by WTF

You really are slow...I've already answered you.

The ratio had been slowly going down.

That is the focus Grasshopper and Reagan was the one who jumped started it (the ratio) going back up. I would provide a graph for you but I think it would just confuse further!

From a high of 119% in 1946 to 32% and then old Ronnie Pooh had it back up to 50%.

But myself and Tiny are waiting to hear from the forums own self professed genius....if you thought that was you, my apologies but jackass is close enough here!

It is too late to sit down before you embarrass yourself but it's not too late to stfu

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

so you admit the full numbers you refused to post show many examples of over 100 percent debt to GDP. thanks for clearing that up!

once again you used stats out of context to prove a point that does not exist.

The full numbers show exactly wtf I said to be true.

In the past when we ran up high debt...we paid it down. This can best be seen in the ratio of debt to GDP.

We basically saw that number decline from the high in 1946 until 1980 when RONALD REAGAN jump started this number from 32% to 50% and it hasn't slowed down since.

The surplus SS masked this from folks like Lustylad who liked to only look at private debt. But the numbers I provided and you still seem not to understand show our gross debt ratio(Tiny's term) has steadily increased.

So the Reagan tax hike via SS and continued massive spending without tax increases has gotten us to this point.

None of you supply guru's will admit the failure but the numbers do not lie

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WTF

Maybe Tiny can explain the discrepancy between this link showing that ratio to be 50% in 1988, not 40%. After you two figure that out....get back with me...

Originally Posted by WTF

You'll notice that lustylad does not answer the discrepancy question...

Question for you, dunderhead... why would you ask someone you say has no cred as an economist to look up your economic data for you? Are you nuts? Or are you admitting my answers (unlike yours) can be relied on?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Tiny

I suspect the 50% number is gross federal debt as a % of GDP, which includes government debt held by the Fed, social security trust funds, etc., but I didn’t check that out. The 40%, which is the one to look at, is federal debt held by the public as a % of GDP.

Bingo! We have a winner!

Here's the graph tiny originally posted in #780 from the widely availed Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis online database:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYGFGDQ188S

It uses "Federal Debt Held By the Public" as the numerator.

If wtf wasn't so stupid and lazy, and if he had even rudimentary research skills, he would have noticed the same online source has a separate data series for "Gross Federal Debt". If you substitute that in the numerator, the graph looks as follows:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDGDPA188S

You can even pluck out the ratio at any point along the graph by hovering your cursor over the curve. I'm sure tiny already knows this and wtf doesn't have a fucking clue.

The reason why most economists prefer to use the (lower) "debt held by the public" in analyzing trends is probably because debt held by the Fed and federal agencies arguably represent less of a real liability inasmuch as it is owed "within the family".

Bottom line - it doesn't matter which definition you use, the conclusion is the same. Reagan didn't explode the debt ratio. FDR and Obama did.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Question for you, dunderhead... why would you ask someone you say has no cred as an economist to look up your economic data for you? Are you nuts? Or are you admitting my answers (unlike yours) can be relied on?

I've said you're just fine as a micro partisan hack economist. You never get the big picture right. But the question I asked, you are quite capable of handling.

Now the reason I asked you was for you to admit that that there were two different set of ratios.

I do not expect you to apologize for continually saying Reagan was at 40% when in fact he ended at 50%... up from 32%!

More on why the more accurate picture is in fact the gross domestic ratio later.

Unless either you or Tiny would like to make a case as to why we should not include debt we owe our SS Trust?

Are our seniors just going to say"No worries mate....we will just take less money in retirement "?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDGDPA188S


The reason why most economists prefer to use the (lower) "debt held by the public" in analyzing trends is probably because debt held by the Fed and federal agencies arguably represent less of a real liability inasmuch as it is owed "within the family".

Bottom line - it doesn't matter which definition you use, the conclusion is the same. Reagan didn't explode the debt ratio. FDR and Obama did.

Are you sure it is not just most "supply side" economist?

Because that graph you provided seems to shoot up at an almost 60° angle! It does dip a bit and I think neither of us give Clinton all the credit like many do...we agree on peace dividend, dot com bubble, I give Ross Perot credit for focusing on debt and spending and a GOP House. Low oil prices where a huge help because of the rate we were importing oil.

Please elaborate on why in house debt should not be given as much weight. I asked in the other post too.

But there is no doubt that the ratio was on a steady decline until Reagan took office and blew the doors off!

I've never understood how borrowing so much money mean you're prosperous.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by WTF

Unless either you or Tiny would like to make a case as to why we should not include debt we owe our SS Trust?

Originally Posted by WTF

Please elaborate on why in house debt should not be given as much weight. I asked in the other post too.

From the CFRB, which is nonpartisan and is staffed and advised by heavyweights in economics, like Lusty Lad and Captain Midnight:

The ratio of publicly held debt to GDP is a better measure of a country's fiscal situation than just the nominal debt figure because it shows the burden of debt relative to the country's total economic output and therefore its ability to finance or repay it. This measure also allows for an apples-to-apples comparison of one country's fiscal situation over time or multiple countries' debt burden in a meaningful way.

https://www.crfb.org/papers/qa-gross...bt-held-public

I believe when economists make comparisons between countries they usually quote net debt. For example, the old rule of thumb that you're headed for the shitter when debt exceeds 100% of GDP refers to net debt. The European Union has a ceiling for debt held by the public, not gross debt, of 60% of GDP, for member states.

Why do economists prefer to look at net debt? Well, I'm not an economist. But Lusty Lad says "The reason why most economists prefer to use the (lower) "debt held by the public" in analyzing trends is probably because debt held by the Fed and federal agencies arguably represent less of a real liability inasmuch as it is owed "within the family".

If a company buys its own bonds or the bonds of its subsidiary, would it make more sense to subtract the value of those bonds from the company's debt on its consolidated balance sheet if you were looking at its solvency? Absolutely. Intuitively I'd think it would be same for governments.

Anyway, as Lusty Lad says, if you want to look at what our gross debt was historically, or compare gross debt as a % of GDP to Greece or Italy or Portugal or wherever, you can do that. And you'll come to the same conclusion. Our debt to GDP ratio was at a reasonable level when Reagan left office.

[bambino]

https://t.me/rrndaily/133139

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Anyway, as Lusty Lad says, if you want to look at what our gross debt was historically, or compare gross debt as a % of GDP to Greece or Italy or Portugal or wherever, you can do that. And you'll come to the same conclusion. Our debt to GDP ratio was at a reasonable level when Reagan left office.

I did not say Reagan left us a unreasonable ratio...I said he started this madness. And the numbers bear that out.

Next I think it a fools errand to compare our situation to say Greece. We have the world currency.

And lastly...I still haven't heard a sensible reason why debt to say the SS Trust fund is not signficant. Are we planning on raising the SS tax rate to make up this theft? Lower benefits to seniors? What politicians will propose those measures? Reagan? He did the first and basically transferred it partially to the military industrial complex.

Evidently we disagree the importance of this tomfoolery.

LBJ started this trickery by combining the two to hide the costs of Vietnam.

[WTF]

https://tucson.com/business/national...ed9bb3567.html

By pulling off this bookkeeping maneuver, by adding the Social Security funds to the government’s overall ledgers, LBJ was able to disguise the growing deficit caused primarily by all the spending for the Vietnam War.

[Salty Again]

... Okay... Should be rather obvious to everybody
that Reagan DID spend a lot of money to start,
once he got voted-on.

He surely needed to SAVE your country from the weak
and sad economic DISASTER of that Carter bloke.

Didja really have to onley buy petrol on certain days
and what-not??

Surely might get to that point here.
At least Trump had the country almost energy independent.

### Salty

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Salty Again

...

Surely might get to that point here.
At least Trump had the country almost energy independent.

### Salty

Your ignorance on the oil industry is showing. I suppose next you'll try and convince me the Rooster is the reason for Sunrise?

Do you understand all the infrastructure it took to get that oil to market? The length of time it took to build that infrastructure?

Do you have a clue the money invested (and lost) that the flooding of the market caused? How long do you think that could have gone on?
Covid put an abrupt end to the inevitable. There is so much more but giving credit to Trump is like giving credit to a QB and ignoring all the other factors involved such as drafting, the offense line, Defense. injuries, coaching.

It is just ignorant AF to make statements such as yours. To be fair, you're not the only one believing such malarkey. Maybe I should forgive you because of your background

[WTF]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

once again you used stats out of context to prove a point that does not exist.

Explain how they are/were out of context?